M/S AGARWAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ,BHOPAL vs. DYPTI COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing It(Ss)A Nos.233 To 238/Ind/2017 Assessment Year:2006-07 To 2011-12 M/S. Agrawal Construction Co. Acit, 1(1) बनाम/ Bhopal Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.Aaefa8225H It(Ss)A No.224 To 226/Ind/2017 Assessment Year:2009-10 To 2011-12 Acit, 1(1) M/S. Agrawal Construction बनाम/ Bhopal Co. Bhopal Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaefa8225H Assessment Year: 2012-13

section. The appellant has made claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) wherein, the permission certificate and completion certificate from the local authority have been obtained within cutoff date which is the most basis requirement to claim deduction u/s 80IB(10). 16. We have considered rival contentions and gone through the material available on record. We find that the Revenue could

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-II, BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. M/S AGRAWAL CONSTRUCTION CO., BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing It(Ss)A Nos.233 To 238/Ind/2017 Assessment Year:2006-07 To 2011-12 M/S. Agrawal Construction Co. Acit, 1(1) बनाम/ Bhopal Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.Aaefa8225H It(Ss)A No.224 To 226/Ind/2017 Assessment Year:2009-10 To 2011-12 Acit, 1(1) M/S. Agrawal Construction बनाम/ Bhopal Co. Bhopal Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaefa8225H Assessment Year: 2012-13

section. The appellant has made claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) wherein, the permission certificate and completion certificate from the local authority have been obtained within cutoff date which is the most basis requirement to claim deduction u/s 80IB(10). 16. We have considered rival contentions and gone through the material available on record. We find that the Revenue could

D.K CONSTRUCTION,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 2 (3), BHOPAL

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanid. K Construction Ito 2(3) E 2/21, Pandit Deeendayal Bhopal Complex, Arera Colony, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaafd7121P Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit- Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 04.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09 .09.2024

TDS.” 2. At the time of hearing Ld. AR of the assesse has stated at bar that due to smallness of disallowance the assessee does not press ground no.2 of the grounds of appeal and the same may be dismissed as not pressed. Ld. DR has raised no objection if ground no.2 of the assesse’s appeal is dismissed

M/S. ARIHANT CHERITABLE TRUST,INDORE vs. THE ITO (TDS)-1, INDORE

In the result, we find no force in the ground of the Revenue, hence dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2015-16

10% under section 194J of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 and therefore, he determined demand on account of short-deduction of tax at Rs. 6,948/- and interest on such short-deduction of tax at Rs. 2,073/-. Quarter-wise details of demand as determined by the assessing officer are as under: [Page No. 29-36] S. Quarter Amount TDS

M/S MADHYA PRADESH MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

14 of the Constitution of India. In order to save the Constitutional validity of the proviso, the same would have to be read down and interpreted in the context of Section 10(23C)(iv) because, in our view, the context requires such an interpretation. The correct interpretation of the proviso to Section 2(15) of the said Act would

M/S MADHYA PRADESH MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT, BHOPAL

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

14 of the Constitution of India. In order to save the Constitutional validity of the proviso, the same would have to be read down and interpreted in the context of Section 10(23C)(iv) because, in our view, the context requires such an interpretation. The correct interpretation of the proviso to Section 2(15) of the said Act would

SUPREME TRANSPORT COMPANY,INDORE vs. ITO TDS-II, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

14. The Hon'ble High Court thus held that where the impugned notices given by Revenue Department under section 200A of the Act were for the period prior to 1-6-2015, then same were illegal and invalid. Vide para 27, it was further held that the impugned notices under section 200A of the Act were for computation and intimation

SUPREME TRANSPORT COMPANY,INDORE vs. ITO TDS-II, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

14. The Hon'ble High Court thus held that where the impugned notices given by Revenue Department under section 200A of the Act were for the period prior to 1-6-2015, then same were illegal and invalid. Vide para 27, it was further held that the impugned notices under section 200A of the Act were for computation and intimation

GUNVEER SINGH CHHABRA ,INDORE vs. THE PR CIT -1, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Memebr & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

TDS has been made by the said party on payment of the said interest. The Ld.PCIT was of the view that there was an under assessment of income of Rs.1,67,00,000/- as worked out @12% rate of interest. The issues were directed to be re-examined by the Ld.AO. 4. We have heard the rival submissions made

M/S DHAR AUTHOMOTIVE PVT. LTD,INDORE vs. DCIT TDS, INDORE

In the result, the second issue for lower/non-deduction of TCS

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

TDS survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted on 26.05.2014 to verify the TCS/TCS compliances of the assessee. It entered into contract for Operation and maintenance of the plants with M/s RRB Energy Limited, M/s. Enercon (India) Limited & M/s Kelvin Energy Solution. The assessee applied section 194C of the Act and deducted tax @ 2% on the payments made. However

M/S DHAR AUTHOMOTIVE PVT. LTD,INDORE vs. DCIT TDS, INDORE

In the result, the second issue for lower/non-deduction of TCS

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

TDS survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted on 26.05.2014 to verify the TCS/TCS compliances of the assessee. It entered into contract for Operation and maintenance of the plants with M/s RRB Energy Limited, M/s. Enercon (India) Limited & M/s Kelvin Energy Solution. The assessee applied section 194C of the Act and deducted tax @ 2% on the payments made. However

M/S DHAR AUTHOMOTIVE PVT. LTD,INDORE vs. DCIT TDS, INDORE

In the result, the second issue for lower/non-deduction of TCS

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

TDS survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted on 26.05.2014 to verify the TCS/TCS compliances of the assessee. It entered into contract for Operation and maintenance of the plants with M/s RRB Energy Limited, M/s. Enercon (India) Limited & M/s Kelvin Energy Solution. The assessee applied section 194C of the Act and deducted tax @ 2% on the payments made. However

M/S. N.T.THOMAS MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL AND DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 1(2), INDORE

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meena1.आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No. 139/Ind/2015 2. I.T.A. No. 150/Ind/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2011-12

14(3) dated 7.2.2014 passed by the ACIT-1(2) (hereinafter referred to as the AO). The Grounds of appeal as taken by the assessee in I.T.A. No. 139/Ind/2015. 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing the benefit of carry forward of loss. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not accepting the claim

THE ITO, (EXEMPTION), INDORE vs. M/S. N.T.THOMAS MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL & DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY, INDORE

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meena1.आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No. 139/Ind/2015 2. I.T.A. No. 150/Ind/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2011-12

14(3) dated 7.2.2014 passed by the ACIT-1(2) (hereinafter referred to as the AO). The Grounds of appeal as taken by the assessee in I.T.A. No. 139/Ind/2015. 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing the benefit of carry forward of loss. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not accepting the claim

THEACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE, INDORE vs. M/S KETI CONSTRUCTION LTD., INDORE

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit(Central)-2 M/S Keti Construction Ltd Indore Vastalya Chamebers, Sapna Sangeeta, 31/6, Sneh Nagar Vs. Main Road, Indore

TDS u/s 40a(ia) of the Page 3 of 14 ITA No.329 /Ind/2022 Keti Construction ltd. Page 4 of 14 Act. Thus, about 50% of the total expenses debited in the profit and loss account were already disallowed by the assessee while computing total income in view of the provision of section 40a(ia) whereas the AO has made

DISHA EDUCATION SOCIETY,RAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, both appeals of assessee are allowed

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

10 of 14 ITA No.164 & 165/Ind/2023 Disha Education Society Page 11 of 14 (e) Xxxxx (f) The trust or institution has not complied with the requirement of any other law, as referred to in item (B) of sub-clause(i) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) and the order direction or decree by whatever name called holding that such

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

Appeals are allowed

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

10,18,92,350/-. Respectfully following above judicial precedents, we hold that these charges are not fees for rendering any technical services as envisaged in Section 194J of the Act. Therefore, we reverse the order of the ld CIT (A) and assessee's appeal is allowed on this ground also.” 14. Reading of the above order clearly show that fact

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

Appeals are allowed

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

10,18,92,350/-. Respectfully following above judicial precedents, we hold that these charges are not fees for rendering any technical services as envisaged in Section 194J of the Act. Therefore, we reverse the order of the ld CIT (A) and assessee's appeal is allowed on this ground also.” 14. Reading of the above order clearly show that fact