BMG CALCUTTAWALA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. AO CPC (TDS), ITO TDS(1) INDORE, INDORE

Appeals are allowed\"

TDS return/statement before 1-6-\n2015 i.e. insertion of caluse (c) to section 200A have also been\nexamined by various High Courts and have upheld the\nchargeability of fee u/s 234E and the assessee's appeal have\nbeen dismissed. In particular, the decisions of Hon'ble Gujarat\nHigh Court, Madras High Court & Rajasthan High Court may\nkindly be referred

THE ACIT,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

TDS, obtaining of PAN of the Payee- transporter alone is sufficient and no further confirmation letters were required. It was also held that sections 194C(6) of the Act and Section 194C(7) of the Act are independent of each other, and cannot be read together to attract disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) read with Section 194C

THE ADDL. CIT RANGE -1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

TDS, obtaining of PAN of the Payee- transporter alone is sufficient and no further confirmation letters were required. It was also held that sections 194C(6) of the Act and Section 194C(7) of the Act are independent of each other, and cannot be read together to attract disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) read with Section 194C

THE ACIT ,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

TDS, obtaining of PAN of the Payee- transporter alone is sufficient and no further confirmation letters were required. It was also held that sections 194C(6) of the Act and Section 194C(7) of the Act are independent of each other, and cannot be read together to attract disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) read with Section 194C

CENTRAL INDIA ACADEMY ,DEWAS vs. THE4 PCIT-1,INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2018-19 Central India Academy, Pcit-1, 1, Bhopal Road, Indore बनाम/ Jetpura, Vs. Dewas (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaaac4091Q Assessee By Ms. Ruchira Negi, Adv. & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 14.03.2024

TDS out of rent payments, etc. to substantiate the genuineness of rent expenditure. But the rent-agreements were executed on stamp-papers of Rs. 500/- only and they were not registered with the Registration Department as per provisions of section 17 of Registration Act, 1908. The PCIT further noted that as per provisions of section 33 of Indian Stamps

M.P. WAREHOUSING AND LOGISTICS CORPORATION, INDORE,INDORE vs. ACIT (TDS), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, both appeals of assessee are allowed

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

TDS for the payment made to Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti. He has referred to the CBDT Circular no.18 of 2017 dated 29.05.2017 whereby the CBDT had clarified that tax is not required to be deducted at source on the payment/credit to Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti. However, the authorities below have not followed the circular of the CBDT which is otherwise

M.P. WAREHOUSING AND LOGISTICS CORPORATION, INDORE,INDORE vs. ACIT (TDS), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, both appeals of assessee are allowed

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

TDS for the payment made to Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti. He has referred to the CBDT Circular no.18 of 2017 dated 29.05.2017 whereby the CBDT had clarified that tax is not required to be deducted at source on the payment/credit to Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti. However, the authorities below have not followed the circular of the CBDT which is otherwise

SHRI SHALIGRAM BAROD, ,INDORE vs. PR. CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble’ Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Shaligram Barod, Pr. Cit-I, Ah/29, Hig, Sukhliya Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Ahfpp4068H Appellant By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit-Dr

119 to 122 of the Compilation The expenses as incurred for construction of House was to the tune of Rs 43,31,991/- which also includes Rs 218994/- as paid for sanction of MAP The expenses incurred were for construction of new house after demolition of the old house. Hence, the appellant was rightly eligible to claim deduction under Shaligram

THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

TDS on several other payments made during the year and consequently, no disallowance was called for under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 9.1 We further find that the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of the assessee itself for the A.Y. 2009-10 vide order dated 10.11.2014 approved the net profit rate of 5% in the business carried

THE AIT,ENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SURYA INFRAVENTURE P LTD, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

TDS on several other payments made during the year and consequently, no disallowance was called for under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 9.1 We further find that the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of the assessee itself for the A.Y. 2009-10 vide order dated 10.11.2014 approved the net profit rate of 5% in the business carried

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

TDS on several other payments made during the year and consequently, no disallowance was called for under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 9.1 We further find that the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of the assessee itself for the A.Y. 2009-10 vide order dated 10.11.2014 approved the net profit rate of 5% in the business carried

ACIT(CENTRAL)-2, INDORE vs. SHRI AAKASH SHUKLA, INDORE

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit(Central)-1 Shri Aakash Shukla Indore 94, Banganga Main Road Vs. Indore

section 68 of the Act. It has been found that all loans had been received by the appellant from the companies under consideration through proper banking channel and the appellant has paid interest thereon after deducting TDS. Repayment of loans have been done and interest thereon has been paid and due TDS has also been made. The appellant has also

M/S LIFE CARE INTERNATIONAL,INDORE vs. ACIT-3,(1) , INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

119 Inner Page No 8 of the assessment order 1.2 Advice of bank regarding transfer of amount to the 120-121 ---do--- bank account of the assessee 1.3 Copy of PAN Card ---do--- 1.4 Copy of audited balance sheet of the loan creditor as on 122-131 ---do--- 31.03.2011 1.5 Copy of intimation as passed by the CPC clearly

M/S LIFE CARE INTERNATIONAL,INDORE vs. ACIT-3,(1) , INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

119 Inner Page No 8 of the assessment order 1.2 Advice of bank regarding transfer of amount to the 120-121 ---do--- bank account of the assessee 1.3 Copy of PAN Card ---do--- 1.4 Copy of audited balance sheet of the loan creditor as on 122-131 ---do--- 31.03.2011 1.5 Copy of intimation as passed by the CPC clearly

M/S LIFE CARE INTERNATIONAL,INDORE vs. JCIT-3, INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

119 Inner Page No 8 of the assessment order 1.2 Advice of bank regarding transfer of amount to the 120-121 ---do--- bank account of the assessee 1.3 Copy of PAN Card ---do--- 1.4 Copy of audited balance sheet of the loan creditor as on 122-131 ---do--- 31.03.2011 1.5 Copy of intimation as passed by the CPC clearly

DILIP BUILDCON LTD.,BHOPAL vs. DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

119 taxmann.com 489. Relevant finding of the Rajkot Bench of I.T.A.T. is mentioned below:- 13. The next controversy arises whether the assessee is acting as a developer or a work contractor in the projects of road development as per explanation 13 attached below section 80-IA (13) of the Act. At this juncture, it is pertinent to refer the provisions

DILIP BUILDCON LTD.,BHOPAL vs. DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

119 taxmann.com 489. Relevant finding of the Rajkot Bench of I.T.A.T. is mentioned below:- 13. The next controversy arises whether the assessee is acting as a developer or a work contractor in the projects of road development as per explanation 13 attached below section 80-IA (13) of the Act. At this juncture, it is pertinent to refer the provisions

DILIP BUILDCON LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

119 taxmann.com 489. Relevant finding of the Rajkot Bench of I.T.A.T. is mentioned below:- 13. The next controversy arises whether the assessee is acting as a developer or a work contractor in the projects of road development as per explanation 13 attached below section 80-IA (13) of the Act. At this juncture, it is pertinent to refer the provisions