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

ACIT 2 (1), INDORE vs. M/S JILA INDUSTRIES LTD, DHAR

In the result this appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R.Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyanivirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2010-11 Acit-2(1), Indore M/S. Jiji Industries Ltd., (Formerly Known As बनाम/ Krishna Profiles Pvt. Ltd.), Vs. Plot No.316, Sejwaya, Billod, Dhar (Mp) (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A.N. - Aacck 1383 M Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ca Date Of Hearing: 02.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.02.2022

TDS at all and this proposition is also supported by the decisions quoted by Ld. A/R mentioned earlier. 5.7 At this stage we also take note of the Ground No. 1.1 wherein the Revenue has claimed that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding Mr. Aashik Asaria as a resident of UAE having no permanent establishment in India

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

127 of the Act by the CIT, Central, Bhopal and the case records were received on 11.09.2015 from old jurisdiction. Due to change of incumbent, a fresh notice under Section 143(2) of the Act dated 15.01.2016 and further notice under Section 142(1) of the Act alongwith a detailed questionnaire were issued on 15.01.2016. In response thereof, written submission

DCIT CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

127 of the Act by the CIT, Central, Bhopal and the case records were received on 11.09.2015 from old jurisdiction. Due to change of incumbent, a fresh notice under Section 143(2) of the Act dated 15.01.2016 and further notice under Section 142(1) of the Act alongwith a detailed questionnaire were issued on 15.01.2016. In response thereof, written submission

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

127 of the Act by the CIT, Central, Bhopal and the case records were received on 11.09.2015 from old jurisdiction. Due to change of incumbent, a fresh notice under Section 143(2) of the Act dated 15.01.2016 and further notice under Section 142(1) of the Act alongwith a detailed questionnaire were issued on 15.01.2016. In response thereof, written submission

M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., UNIT SATNA CEMENT WORKS,SATNA vs. ITO (IT & TP), BHOPAL

In the result, Assessee’s appeals

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

section 5(2)(b) r.w.r.t. 9(1) of the Act in place of DTAA provisions and secondly the Ld. Assessing Officer erred in holding that the non-resident were having a Permanent Establishment in India without bringing any thing on record to establish that dependent Abench PE existed in light of the Article 5 & 6 of DTAA. 7. Ld. Counsel

M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., UNIT SATNA CEMENT WORKS,SATNA vs. ITO (IT & TP), BHOPAL

In the result, Assessee’s appeals

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

section 5(2)(b) r.w.r.t. 9(1) of the Act in place of DTAA provisions and secondly the Ld. Assessing Officer erred in holding that the non-resident were having a Permanent Establishment in India without bringing any thing on record to establish that dependent Abench PE existed in light of the Article 5 & 6 of DTAA. 7. Ld. Counsel

SHYAM PRATAP SINGH SHEKHAWAT,LUDHIANA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11 Shri Shyam Pratap Singh Shekhawat Vs Pr. Cit, Zonal Office, Bhai Bala Chowk, Bhopal 5Th Floor, Noble Enclave, Ludhiana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan Acaps0740F Revenue By Smt. Ashima Gupta, Cit Assessee By S/Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Advocates Date Of Hearing 22.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 26.07.2019 O R D E R

TDS claimed by the assessee and data available at 26AS. In compliance u/s 148 of the Act the assessee filed revised return of income at 4 Shyam Pratap Singh Shekhawat Rs.10,22,892/-. Additions were made by Ld. A.O but he failed to initiate penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Subsequently Ld. PCIT exercising power

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 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

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

SHRI SURENDRA SINGH BHATIA,INDORE vs. THE JCIT-3, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

TDS 2,62,79,228 14-09-2007 1,40,00,000 15-12-2007 5,00,00,000 15-12-2007 1,30,00,000 15-03-2008 1,63,00,000 18-09-2008 40,00,000 25-09-2008 17,00,000 .. 1,23,37,620 Total 13,76,16,848 3.02 Your Honour, in the instant

THE DCIT1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. AGRAWAL COAL CORPORATION P LTD., INDORE

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

127 50 SOT 134 (Ahm.Trib), Mastek Limited vs. Addl. CIT, (2012) 53 SOT 111 (Ahm.), LGEC – NCC vs. ITO, (2014) 37 taxmann.com 402 (I.T.A.T. Hyd.). The assessee has further relied on the decision of CIT vs. EKL Appliances Limited, (2012) 345 ITR 241(Del), wherein the Hon’ble High Court has affirmed the use of OECD guidelines and stressed that

THE DCIT-1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. AGRAWAL COAL CORPORATION P. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

127 50 SOT 134 (Ahm.Trib), Mastek Limited vs. Addl. CIT, (2012) 53 SOT 111 (Ahm.), LGEC – NCC vs. ITO, (2014) 37 taxmann.com 402 (I.T.A.T. Hyd.). The assessee has further relied on the decision of CIT vs. EKL Appliances Limited, (2012) 345 ITR 241(Del), wherein the Hon’ble High Court has affirmed the use of OECD guidelines and stressed that

M/S. AGRAWAL COAL CORPORATION P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT -CIRCLE 1(1), INDORE

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

127 50 SOT 134 (Ahm.Trib), Mastek Limited vs. Addl. CIT, (2012) 53 SOT 111 (Ahm.), LGEC – NCC vs. ITO, (2014) 37 taxmann.com 402 (I.T.A.T. Hyd.). The assessee has further relied on the decision of CIT vs. EKL Appliances Limited, (2012) 345 ITR 241(Del), wherein the Hon’ble High Court has affirmed the use of OECD guidelines and stressed that

M/S. AGRAWAL COAL CORPORATION P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT RANGE 1(1), INDORE

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

127 50 SOT 134 (Ahm.Trib), Mastek Limited vs. Addl. CIT, (2012) 53 SOT 111 (Ahm.), LGEC – NCC vs. ITO, (2014) 37 taxmann.com 402 (I.T.A.T. Hyd.). The assessee has further relied on the decision of CIT vs. EKL Appliances Limited, (2012) 345 ITR 241(Del), wherein the Hon’ble High Court has affirmed the use of OECD guidelines and stressed that

JARNALBEER SINGH BHATIA,KHANDWA vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL-3, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A Nos.19 To 23/Ind/2023 & Ita No.226/Ind/2023 Ays : 2013-14 To 2018-19 Jarnalbeer Singh Bhatia, Dcit/Acit, बनाम/ Bhatia Transport (Central)-3, Vs. Services, Indore. Old Indore Lines, Pandhana Road, Khandwa (Pan: Aixpb4565C) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

TDS on such expenses and has failed to do so ? b) Without prejudice to the above, additional evidence was admitted without giving adequate opportunity to the AO ? c) Without prejudice to the above, there is non-compliance of section 194C(7) of the Income-tax Act by the assessee since the assessee failed to furnish, to the prescribed income

THE ACIT CENTRAL-3, INDORE vs. JARNALBEER SINGH BHATIA, KHANDWA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A Nos.19 To 23/Ind/2023 & Ita No.226/Ind/2023 Ays : 2013-14 To 2018-19 Jarnalbeer Singh Bhatia, Dcit/Acit, बनाम/ Bhatia Transport (Central)-3, Vs. Services, Indore. Old Indore Lines, Pandhana Road, Khandwa (Pan: Aixpb4565C) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

TDS on such expenses and has failed to do so ? b) Without prejudice to the above, additional evidence was admitted without giving adequate opportunity to the AO ? c) Without prejudice to the above, there is non-compliance of section 194C(7) of the Income-tax Act by the assessee since the assessee failed to furnish, to the prescribed income