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

TDS in ITA Nos.2072 & 2073/PUN/2017, order dated 21-12- 2017, which has been relied upon by the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee. 13. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi v. Union of India (supra) had also laid down similar proposition that the amendment to section

SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

13) does not apply to the assessee. Page 20 of 27 Shreenathji Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.310 to 314/Ind/2018 A.Y.2009-10,2010-11, 2012-13 to 2014-15 13.7 Going forward, we find in this context, the Hon'ble Pune Tribunal in the case of B.T. Patil& Sons Belgaum Constructions (P.) Ltd. [2013] 34 taxmann.com 97/59 SOT 61 (URO) after referring

SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

13) does not apply to the assessee. Page 20 of 27 Shreenathji Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.310 to 314/Ind/2018 A.Y.2009-10,2010-11, 2012-13 to 2014-15 13.7 Going forward, we find in this context, the Hon'ble Pune Tribunal in the case of B.T. Patil& Sons Belgaum Constructions (P.) Ltd. [2013] 34 taxmann.com 97/59 SOT 61 (URO) after referring

SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

13) does not apply to the assessee. Page 20 of 27 Shreenathji Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.310 to 314/Ind/2018 A.Y.2009-10,2010-11, 2012-13 to 2014-15 13.7 Going forward, we find in this context, the Hon'ble Pune Tribunal in the case of B.T. Patil& Sons Belgaum Constructions (P.) Ltd. [2013] 34 taxmann.com 97/59 SOT 61 (URO) after referring

SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

13) does not apply to the assessee. Page 20 of 27 Shreenathji Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.310 to 314/Ind/2018 A.Y.2009-10,2010-11, 2012-13 to 2014-15 13.7 Going forward, we find in this context, the Hon'ble Pune Tribunal in the case of B.T. Patil& Sons Belgaum Constructions (P.) Ltd. [2013] 34 taxmann.com 97/59 SOT 61 (URO) after referring

SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

13) does not apply to the assessee. Page 20 of 27 Shreenathji Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.310 to 314/Ind/2018 A.Y.2009-10,2010-11, 2012-13 to 2014-15 13.7 Going forward, we find in this context, the Hon'ble Pune Tribunal in the case of B.T. Patil& Sons Belgaum Constructions (P.) Ltd. [2013] 34 taxmann.com 97/59 SOT 61 (URO) after referring

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

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

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

TDS certificate tax at source was deducted u/s. 194C being applicable to a contractor cannot be the reason for treating a genuine developer as a contractor. The same cannot detract the assessee from the position of being a developer; nor should it debar the assessee from claiming deduction under section 80- IA(4). Therefore, the assessee, who is only engaged

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&

TDS certificate tax at source was deducted u/s. 194C being applicable to a contractor cannot be the reason for treating a genuine developer as a contractor. The same cannot detract the assessee from the position of being a developer; nor should it debar the assessee from claiming deduction under section 80- IA(4). Therefore, the assessee, who is only engaged

SHRI 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&

TDS certificate tax at source was deducted u/s. 194C being applicable to a contractor cannot be the reason for treating a genuine developer as a contractor. The same cannot detract the assessee from the position of being a developer; nor should it debar the assessee from claiming deduction under section 80- IA(4). Therefore, the assessee, who is only engaged

THED CIT ,CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL vs. M/S DILIP BUILDCON LTD, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

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

TDS certificate tax at source was deducted u/s. 194C being applicable to a contractor cannot be the reason for treating a genuine developer as a contractor. The same cannot detract the assessee from the position of being a developer; nor should it debar the assessee from claiming deduction under section 80- IA(4). Therefore, the assessee, who is only engaged

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

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

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

TDS certificate tax at source was deducted u/s. 194C being applicable to a contractor cannot be the reason for treating a genuine developer as a contractor. The same cannot detract the assessee from the position of being a developer; nor should it debar the assessee from claiming deduction under section 80- IA(4). Therefore, the assessee, who is only engaged

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&

TDS certificate tax at source was deducted u/s. 194C being applicable to a contractor cannot be the reason for treating a genuine developer as a contractor. The same cannot detract the assessee from the position of being a developer; nor should it debar the assessee from claiming deduction under section 80- IA(4). Therefore, the assessee, who is only engaged

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

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

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

TDS certificate tax at source was deducted u/s. 194C being applicable to a contractor cannot be the reason for treating a genuine developer as a contractor. The same cannot detract the assessee from the position of being a developer; nor should it debar the assessee from claiming deduction under section 80- IA(4). Therefore, the assessee, who is only engaged

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&

TDS certificate tax at source was deducted u/s. 194C being applicable to a contractor cannot be the reason for treating a genuine developer as a contractor. The same cannot detract the assessee from the position of being a developer; nor should it debar the assessee from claiming deduction under section 80- IA(4). Therefore, the assessee, who is only engaged

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

Appeals are allowed\"

13-1-2017 and also in Swami Vivekanand\nVidyalaya v. DCIT(CPC)-TDS (supra) and Medical Superintendant\nRural\nHospital v. ACIT (CPC)-TDS in ITA Nos.2072\n&\n2073/PUN/2017, order dated 21-12-2017, which has been relied\nupon by the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee.\n13. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Fatheraj\nSinghvi

PERMALI WALLACE PVT. LTD,BHOPAL vs. ITO (IT & TP), BHOPAL

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

TDS. The assessee carried matter in first appeal but could not succeed. 10. Before us, Ld.AR for assesseeneither claimed that the impugned payments do not fall in the definition of “FTS” prescribed in Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii) nor even claimed that the payees did not render service in India or the payees do not have any agent

PERMALI WALLACE PVT. LTD,BHOPAL vs. ITO (IT & TP), BHOPAL

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

TDS. The assessee carried matter in first appeal but could not succeed. 10. Before us, Ld.AR for assesseeneither claimed that the impugned payments do not fall in the definition of “FTS” prescribed in Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii) nor even claimed that the payees did not render service in India or the payees do not have any agent

PERMALI WALLACE PVT. LTD,BHOPAL vs. ITO (IT & TP), BHOPAL

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

TDS. The assessee carried matter in first appeal but could not succeed. 10. Before us, Ld.AR for assesseeneither claimed that the impugned payments do not fall in the definition of “FTS” prescribed in Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii) nor even claimed that the payees did not render service in India or the payees do not have any agent