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 200A of the Act w.e.f. 1

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

Appeals are allowed\"

TDS statements/returns\nin the present set of appeals for the period prior to 1-6-2015,\nwas not empowered to charge fees under section 234E of the\nAct. Hence, the intimation issued by the Assessing Officer under\nsection 200A of the Act in all these appeals does not stand and\nthe demand raised by way of charging the fees under

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

Appeals are allowed

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

1) read with Section 201(1A) of the Act and the directions were given by the Appellate Authority. But it was found in the appeal that the TDS was deductible. The matter was carried further in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal recorded the reasons from paragraphs 13

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

Appeals are allowed

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

1) read with Section 201(1A) of the Act and the directions were given by the Appellate Authority. But it was found in the appeal that the TDS was deductible. The matter was carried further in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal recorded the reasons from paragraphs 13

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

Appeals are allowed

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

1) read with Section 201(1A) of the Act and the directions were given by the Appellate Authority. But it was found in the appeal that the TDS was deductible. The matter was carried further in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal recorded the reasons from paragraphs 13

SUCH MEDIA PUBLICATION P LTD ,CIT (A) NFAC DELHI vs. NFAC DELHI, DELHI

In the result, this appeal is dismissed

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

13,146/- on account of employees’ contributions received by assessee towards Provident Fund or Employees State Insurance Fund (PF/ESI) by way of deduction from salaries but not paid to relevant funds upto the due dates prescribed under PF/ESI laws, made by AO in the intimation passed u/s 143(1) by resorting to the provisions of section 143(1

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)

1) read with Section 201(1A) of the Act and the directions were given by the Appellate Authority. But it was found in the appeal that the TDS was deductible. The matter was carried further in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal recorded the reasons from paragraphs 13

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)

1) read with Section 201(1A) of the Act and the directions were given by the Appellate Authority. But it was found in the appeal that the TDS was deductible. The matter was carried further in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal recorded the reasons from paragraphs 13

SHRI JAGDISH KUMAR GULIA,BHOPAL vs. THRE ASSTT.DIRECTORE OF INCOME TAX ,CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed

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

13 Shri Jagdish Kumar Gulia I.T.A. No. 245/Ind/2023 Assessment Year -2018-19 4. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the assessment year 2019- 2020. 5. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal in a nutshell are that the appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') filed returns of income for the assessment year

M/S DAULATARAM ENGINEERING SERVICES P.LTD,MANDIDEEP vs. THE ADIT/CPC , BANGALORE

In the result, this appeal is dismissed

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

TDS of Rs.72,87,370/- was allowed and the refund was determined at Rs.11,61,797/-. 7. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as 'CIT(A)'). The CIT(A), by order dated 18.12.2023, dismissed the appeal. The assessee thereupon approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by the impugned order dated

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

1)." 2.7 The essence of the above stated provisions and corresponding rules is that the tax deducted at source (TDS) is nothing but tax, and credit for TDS should go to the person in whose hands the income is rightfully and finally assessed to tax in accordance with law irrespective of the person in whose hands the TDS has been

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

1)." 2.7 The essence of the above stated provisions and corresponding rules is that the tax deducted at source (TDS) is nothing but tax, and credit for TDS should go to the person in whose hands the income is rightfully and finally assessed to tax in accordance with law irrespective of the person in whose hands the TDS has been

BAL BHAVAN SCHOOL,BHOPAL vs. DCIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed as mentioned above

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2014-15 Bal Bhavan School, Dcit (Exemption), 1, Shyamla Hills, Bhopal बनाम/ Bhopal Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaaab3678G Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10.06.2024

section 13(1)(c)/13(2). Therefore, the payment of Rs. 14,65,992/- made in current year constituting just 0.21% of market value, is very much reasonable and must be accepted. (iv) The assessee has made month-to-month payment to the payees through banking channel after deduction of appropriate TDS

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

13. We find that Ld. CIT(A) has followed the judgement of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT v. Mahesh Wood Products P Ltd. (supra) and decided the additional legal ground in favour of the assessee. Respectfully following the ratio of aforesaid decision, we find no infirmity in the order passed

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

13. We find that Ld. CIT(A) has followed the judgement of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT v. Mahesh Wood Products P Ltd. (supra) and decided the additional legal ground in favour of the assessee. Respectfully following the ratio of aforesaid decision, we find no infirmity in the order passed

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