NARENDRA KUMAR MISHRA,BHOPAL vs. ITO-3(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

100/-. Based on these observations the Id. AO is directed\nto allow the claim of the assessee u/s. 10(10AA) of the act\nwithin the revised limit as prescribed. In terms of these\nobservations the appeal of the assessee is allowed.\nOn being consistent to the said finding, we held that the\nassessee is entitled to get the deduction

M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (TDS), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

100. Also, any ruling on the more expansive language contained in the explanations to section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act would have to be ignored if it is wider and less beneficial to the assessee than the definition contained in the DTAA, as per section 90(2) of the Income Tax Act read with explanation 4 thereof

M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (TDS), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

100. Also, any ruling on the more expansive language contained in the explanations to section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act would have to be ignored if it is wider and less beneficial to the assessee than the definition contained in the DTAA, as per section 90(2) of the Income Tax Act read with explanation 4 thereof

M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (TDS), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

100. Also, any ruling on the more expansive language contained in the explanations to section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act would have to be ignored if it is wider and less beneficial to the assessee than the definition contained in the DTAA, as per section 90(2) of the Income Tax Act read with explanation 4 thereof

M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE CIT (TDS), BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Cit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Bhopal Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) M/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Dcit/Jcit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Indore Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

100. Also, any ruling on the more expansive language contained in the explanations to section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act would have to be ignored if it is wider and less beneficial to the assessee than the definition contained in the DTAA, as per section 90(2) of the Income Tax Act read with explanation 4 thereof

IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. DCIT TDS, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Cit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Bhopal Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) M/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Dcit/Jcit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Indore Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

100. Also, any ruling on the more expansive language contained in the explanations to section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act would have to be ignored if it is wider and less beneficial to the assessee than the definition contained in the DTAA, as per section 90(2) of the Income Tax Act read with explanation 4 thereof

THE DCIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, BHOPAL vs. M/S. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

tds on the basis of 26AS dated 19.09.2013 available. Further it is submitted that the assessee has made FDR with various bank and the same are auto renewed by the bank and the interest on FDR is 39 Mayank Welfare society ITANos.232 & 776/Ind/2018/17 accounted for on the basis of the information available in the 26AS statement and the amount

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, INDORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

tds on the basis of 26AS dated 19.09.2013 available. Further it is submitted that the assessee has made FDR with various bank and the same are auto renewed by the bank and the interest on FDR is 39 Mayank Welfare society ITANos.232 & 776/Ind/2018/17 accounted for on the basis of the information available in the 26AS statement and the amount

URBAN ADMINISTRATION AMD DEVELOPMENT,BHOPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), BHOPAL

In the result, the impugned order is set aside as & by way of

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshidirectorate Of Urban Deputy बनाम/ Administrations & Development, Commissioner Of Vs. Nagar Palika Bhawan, 6 No.Bus Income Tax-Tds, Stop, R.S.Market, Bhopal S.O. Huzur, Bhopal(M.P.) (Tan: Bpldo1618B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sapan Usrethe, Adv. & Ms. Apoorva Garg, Ca Revenue By Shri Anup Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 21.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2026 आदेश / O R D E R

100 percent government owned company and was exempted from the TDS provisions in Notification No. S.O. 3489 dated 22.10.1970. Page 6 of 12 Directorate of Urban Administration & Development ITA No. 477/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2015-16 4. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) NFAC was not justified in levying the TDS provisions of interest paid to HUDCO and confirmed the finding

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

10 Kgs. to 30 Kgs. The conversion of Kgs into Bars would come to approx. 132 bars and the profit would come @ Rs.800/- per Bar to approx. Rs.1,05,600/-. The assessee has shown the gross profit ofRs.11,50,370/-. Thus, the assessee has shown more profit than estimated by the learned Assessing Officer. Complete details of purchases and sales

JCIT(OSD),-2(1),INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

10 Kgs. to 30 Kgs. The conversion of Kgs into Bars would come to approx. 132 bars and the profit would come @ Rs.800/- per Bar to approx. Rs.1,05,600/-. The assessee has shown the gross profit ofRs.11,50,370/-. Thus, the assessee has shown more profit than estimated by the learned Assessing Officer. Complete details of purchases and sales

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

10 Kgs. to 30 Kgs. The conversion of Kgs into Bars would come to approx. 132 bars and the profit would come @ Rs.800/- per Bar to approx. Rs.1,05,600/-. The assessee has shown the gross profit ofRs.11,50,370/-. Thus, the assessee has shown more profit than estimated by the learned Assessing Officer. Complete details of purchases and sales

DEEPAK PAREKH,USA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CPC, BENGALURU

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

10 of 18\nDeepak Parekh\nITA No. 126/Ind/2025 – AY 2022-23\n4. We have heard learned Representatives of both sides and carefully perused the case-record.\n5. At first, Ld. AR for assessee carried us to various documents filed in Paper-Book to show that the sold property was fully owned by assessee individually; 100% investment was made by assessee

SAHARAYN UNIVERSAL MULTIPURPOSE SOCIETY LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

100\nAdd: Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) - 30% of the expenses on which TDS\nwas not deducted\n(i) Rent & Utility charges\n1,29,43,872\n(ii) Salary Expenses\n85,34,595\n(iii) Co-operative Educator Expenses\n193,28,93,248\n(iv) Payment to Contractors\n1,86,718\n(v) Professional Charges\n15,79,826\nAssessed

MILLION TRADERS BHOPAL P LTD,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT,CPC,BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

100 Bengaluru Vs. Complex, Trilanga Road, Gulmohar Colony Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) PAN: AAHCM0187G Assessee by S/Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. With Piyush Parashar & Ms. Peeha Verma, ARs Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 30.08.2023 Date of Pronouncement 12 .10.2023 O R D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM: These two appeals by the assessee

MILLION TRADERS BHOPAL P LTD,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT,CPC,BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

100 Bengaluru Vs. Complex, Trilanga Road, Gulmohar Colony Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) PAN: AAHCM0187G Assessee by S/Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. With Piyush Parashar & Ms. Peeha Verma, ARs Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 30.08.2023 Date of Pronouncement 12 .10.2023 O R D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM: These two appeals by the assessee

PATWA ABHIKARAN P LTD,INDORE vs. ACIT- TDS-CPC , GHAZIABAD

In the result, this appeal is party allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

100 and Rs. 12,53,297 respectively which are supported by form 16 and computation of their income tax return enclosed herewith for your kind perusal. TDS deductible on such amount of payment was Rs.2,71,951 and 2,88,390 respectively. However actual TDS deducted and paid was Rs.2,75,000 and Rs.3,00,000 which is also supported

PATWA ABHIKARAN P LTD,INDORE vs. ACIT- TDS-CPC , GHAZIABAD

In the result, this appeal is party allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

100 and Rs. 12,53,297 respectively which are supported by form 16 and computation of their income tax return enclosed herewith for your kind perusal. TDS deductible on such amount of payment was Rs.2,71,951 and 2,88,390 respectively. However actual TDS deducted and paid was Rs.2,75,000 and Rs.3,00,000 which is also supported