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

d) Section 200A speaks about the processing of TDS return/statements and thus the provisions starts only after the filing of such TDS returns/statements, whether in time or delayed, whereas section 234E seeks to levy the fees for the period of delay in filing such TDS returns and statements. Therefore, it may be seen that the charging provisions of section 234E

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

Appeals are allowed\"

d)\nSection 200A speaks about the processing of TDS\nreturn/statements and thus the provisions starts\nonly after the filing of such TDS\nreturns/statements, whether in time or delayed,\nwhereas section 234E seeks to levy the fees for the\nperiod of delay in filing such TDS returns and\nstatements. Therefore, it may be seen that the\ncharging provisions of section 234E

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

Appeals are allowed

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

Section 194J of the Act is not attracted in the case of "revenue sharing contract". According to Respondent No.1, in such contracts there is only sharing of revenue and, therefore, payments by revenue sharing cannot constitute "fees" under Section 194J of the Act. This submission is not accepted by the Department. We leave it there because this submission

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

Appeals are allowed

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

Section 194J of the Act is not attracted in the case of "revenue sharing contract". According to Respondent No.1, in such contracts there is only sharing of revenue and, therefore, payments by revenue sharing cannot constitute "fees" under Section 194J of the Act. This submission is not accepted by the Department. We leave it there because this submission

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

Appeals are allowed

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

Section 194J of the Act is not attracted in the case of "revenue sharing contract". According to Respondent No.1, in such contracts there is only sharing of revenue and, therefore, payments by revenue sharing cannot constitute "fees" under Section 194J of the Act. This submission is not accepted by the Department. We leave it there because this submission

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

D E R Per B.M. Biyani, AM: This is a re-called matter. Originally this appeal was decided by Order dated 23.08.2022 of ITAT, Indore Bench in favour of assessee based on judicial view prevalent at that time but subsequently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2022) 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC) settled the controversy

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)

D E R Per B.M. Biyani, AM: These are the two appeals filed by assessee for Financial Year 2009-10 relevant to Assessment-Year 2010-11. The first appeal being ITA No. Page 1 of 65 ITA No. 415/Ind/2014 & 265/Ind/2018 – AY 2010-11 M/s Vodafone Idea Ltd. (Formerly M/s Idea Cellular Ltd.) 415/Ind/2014 is directed against revision-order dated

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)

D E R Per B.M. Biyani, AM: These are the two appeals filed by assessee for Financial Year 2009-10 relevant to Assessment-Year 2010-11. The first appeal being ITA No. Page 1 of 65 ITA No. 415/Ind/2014 & 265/Ind/2018 – AY 2010-11 M/s Vodafone Idea Ltd. (Formerly M/s Idea Cellular Ltd.) 415/Ind/2014 is directed against revision-order dated

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

D E R Per B.M. Biyani, AM: Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 28.04.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of intimation of assessment dated 29.04.2019 passed by learned ADIT, CPC, Bangalore [“AO”] u/s 143(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for 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

D E R Per B.M. Biyani, AM: Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 25.04.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of intimation of assessment dated 07.05.2020 passed by learned ADIT, CPC, Bangalore [“AO”] u/s 143(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year

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

d) the income from a property, deposit, security, unit or share held in the name of a deductee is owned jointly by the deductee and other persons and the income is assessable in their hands in the same proportion as their ownership of the asset: Provided that the deductee files a declaration with the deductor and the deductor reports

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

d) the income from a property, deposit, security, unit or share held in the name of a deductee is owned jointly by the deductee and other persons and the income is assessable in their hands in the same proportion as their ownership of the asset: Provided that the deductee files a declaration with the deductor and the deductor reports

ADIM JATI SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI MYDT JOBAT,ALIRAJPUR vs. FACELESS ASSESSMENT OFFICER, ALIRAJPUR

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiadim Jati Sewa Sahkari Samiti National Faceless बनाम/ Mydt., Assessment Centre Vs. 01, Jobat, Jobat, Delhi Alirajpur (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaala0577E Assessee By Shri P.D. Nagar, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr

1) shall be the following, namely XX (d) in respect of any income by way of interest or dividends derived by the co-operative society from its investments with any other co-operative society, the whole of such income;" 7. In this case, the undisputed facts are as under:- The assessee is a Co-operative Society, The assessee had deposits

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

D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 26.06.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 23.12.2016 passed by learned DCIT (Exemption), Bhopal [“AO”] u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year

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

Appeals are allowed

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

D E R Per Bench: The captioned three appeals are filed by assessee assailing two separate appeal-orders, one for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2012-13 and other for AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15, both dated 29.12.2023 and passed by learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-3, Bhopal [“CIT(A)”], which in turn arise out of respective penalty-orders dated

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

Appeals are allowed

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

D E R Per Bench: The captioned three appeals are filed by assessee assailing two separate appeal-orders, one for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2012-13 and other for AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15, both dated 29.12.2023 and passed by learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-3, Bhopal [“CIT(A)”], which in turn arise out of respective penalty-orders dated

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

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

D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: These three (3) appeals are filed by assessee, against three separate appeal- orders, all dated 27.03.2018 and all passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad[“CIT(A)”], which in turn arise out of a composite order dated 08.04.2016 for Financial Year [“FY] 2013-14 & 2014- 15 relevant to Assessment-Year

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

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

D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: These three (3) appeals are filed by assessee, against three separate appeal- orders, all dated 27.03.2018 and all passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad[“CIT(A)”], which in turn arise out of a composite order dated 08.04.2016 for Financial Year [“FY] 2013-14 & 2014- 15 relevant to Assessment-Year