IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. JCIT TDS INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed

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

131/- on account of interest paid to Hyundai Motor India Ltd. 2. The assessee is a telecom service provider engaged in providing services in Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh. During the course of its business the assessee appoints the distributors for issuing and sale of pre-paid SIM card and recharge vouchers. The department initiated the proceedings

IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. JCIT TDS INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed

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

131/- on account of interest paid to Hyundai Motor India Ltd. 2. The assessee is a telecom service provider engaged in providing services in Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh. During the course of its business the assessee appoints the distributors for issuing and sale of pre-paid SIM card and recharge vouchers. The department initiated the proceedings

IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. JCIT TDS INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed

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

131/- on account of interest paid to Hyundai Motor India Ltd. 2. The assessee is a telecom service provider engaged in providing services in Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh. During the course of its business the assessee appoints the distributors for issuing and sale of pre-paid SIM card and recharge vouchers. The department initiated the proceedings

M/S RSATHI IRON AND STEELS I NDUSTRIES LTD. ,INDORE vs. ACIT,TDS. INDORE, INDORE

In the result of the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the penalty u/s 272A(1)(c) of the Act is confirmed to the extent of Rs

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Rathi Iron & Steels Acit, Tds बनाम/ Industries Ltd. Indore Vs. 103, Laxmi Tower, 576, Mg Road, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aaccr2011B Appellant By Shri Venus Rawka, Ca Revenue By Shri R.P. Mourya, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.07.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: This Appeal By Assessee Pertaining To A.Y. 2010-11 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Indore, (In Short ‘Cit(A)’), Dated 13.04.2018 Which Is Arising Out Of The Order U/S 272A(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act 1961(Hereinafter Called As The ‘Act’) Framed On 27.12.2016 By Acit(Tds), Indore. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “That The Learned Ao Erred In Law & The Fact Of The Rathi Iron & Steel Industries Ltd. Itano.601/Ind/2018 Case & Levied The Penalty U/S 272A(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 Of Rs.20,000/- Without Considering Full Facts. The Penalty Levied Therefore Is Wrong On The Facts Of The Case.

TDS-II, Indore and for non-compliance to the said notices the Learned Assessing Officer (in short ‘ld. AO’) levied penalty of Rs.10,000/- each thereby levying penalty of Rs.20,000/- u/s 272A(1)(c) of the Act vide order dated 27.12.2016. 4. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) against the alleged levy of penalty

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. SHRI RITESH JAIN, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani & It(Ss)Ano.14/Ind/2022 (Assesssment Year 2011-12

131(1A), wherein the appellant had categorically explained the reasons for giving such statement during the course of search. It was pleaded by the appellant that the Assessing Officer had indifferently ignored the said letter. It was claimed by the appellant that it was also a matter of record that the appellant had also raised objections in response

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

131 of the Act which were also replied to and the AO himself provided copy of the replies to the assessee. This fact is amply clear from para 4.6 of the assessment order. This fact was also brought to the notice of the AO that the assessee had not undertaken any trade through M/s Shubhlaxmi Commodities on 18.02.2012 on which

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

131 of the Act which were also replied to and the AO himself provided copy of the replies to the assessee. This fact is amply clear from para 4.6 of the assessment order. This fact was also brought to the notice of the AO that the assessee had not undertaken any trade through M/s Shubhlaxmi Commodities on 18.02.2012 on which

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

131 of the Act which were also replied to and the AO himself provided copy of the replies to the assessee. This fact is amply clear from para 4.6 of the assessment order. This fact was also brought to the notice of the AO that the assessee had not undertaken any trade through M/s Shubhlaxmi Commodities on 18.02.2012 on which

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

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

Appeals are allowed

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

131 on 01.04.2015 by the DDIT Investigation, Jaipur. The DDIT Jaipur vide letter dated 23.10.2015 informed the ACIT/AO about the contravention of provisions of section 269SS of the IT Act by the assessee and appropriate action under the provisions of the Act has to be initiated. Thus the initiation of penalty proceedings by issuing the show cause notice dated

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

Appeals are allowed

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

131 on 01.04.2015 by the DDIT Investigation, Jaipur. The DDIT Jaipur vide letter dated 23.10.2015 informed the ACIT/AO about the contravention of provisions of section 269SS of the IT Act by the assessee and appropriate action under the provisions of the Act has to be initiated. Thus the initiation of penalty proceedings by issuing the show cause notice dated

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshishri Vimal Todi, Additional Commissioner बनाम/ 501, Darshan Residency, Of Income-Tax, Vs. 104-105, Anand Bazar, Indore Indore

131 on 01.04.2015 by the DDIT Investigation, Jaipur. The DDIT Jaipur vide letter dated 23.10.2015 informed the ACIT/AO about the contravention of provisions of section 269SS of the IT Act by the assessee and appropriate action under the provisions of the Act has to be initiated. Thus the initiation of penalty proceedings by issuing the show cause notice dated

M/S. BHANDARI HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE,INDORE vs. THE PR. CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Bhandari Hospital & Pr. Cit-(I) Research Centre, Gf-21 & Indore बनाम/ 22, Opp. Meghdoot Garden, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aadfb8151A

TDS as per provisions of the Income Tax was made or not.” 7. In response thereto, the assessee filed its objections against invoking the provisions in the form of written submissions the Ld. Authorised Representative had also made oral arguments against invoking the provisions of Section 263 of the Act Ld. Pr. CIT. However, Ld. Pr. CIT was not satisfied

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

In the result ground no.2 raised by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit(Central)-1 Surya Infraventures Pvt. Indore Ltd. Nanda Nagar, Indore बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Appellant) Pan: Aadca 4235 D Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Shri Bhavesh Agrawal, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 01.12.2022

section 41(1) is without any basis and addition made by Ld. AO is not sustainable. We approve the decision taken by Ld. CIT(A) which is very much sound on the basis of facts Page 7 of 16 M/s Surya Infraventure Pvt. Ltd. Assessment year 2013-14 and law. Accordingly, we find Ground No. 1 of revenue devoid

SHRI MUSTAK KHAN,INDORE vs. THE ITO 2(3), INDORE

Appeal are dismissed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Years 2010-11 Shri Mushtak Khan, Ito 2(3), 29 Kadav Ghat, Vs. Indore Near Py Road, Indore (Assessee) (Respondent ) Pan No.Actpk0068R Revenue By Shri K.G. Goel, Sr.Dr Assessee By Shri Niranjan Purandare, C.A Date Of Hearing 09.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 16.04.2019 O R D E R

131 & 133(6) of the IT Act, for calling/summoning the customers and parties in spite of specific written request made by the appellant, therefore, the additions are vitiated and bad in law. Moreover, Id. AO failed to consider the business practice of this line of business. 6.The Id respondent failed to see the observation/admission of the Id AO who clearly

DISTRICT ORGANISOR TRIBAL WELFARE BHOPAL,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)- 1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

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

131 of the Income Tax Act was issued for the recovery of demand to appear on 31.10.2023, the appellant came to know that this appeal has been dismissed on 13.12.2022. The Assistant Commissioner and other staff of the appellant were engaged in the election of State Legislative Assembly and due to this reason, delay occurred in filing appeal. The delay

DISTRICT ORGANISOR TRIBAL WELFARE BHOPAL,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)-1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

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

131 of the Income Tax Act was issued for the recovery of demand to appear on 31.10.2023, the appellant came to know that this appeal has been dismissed on 13.12.2022. The Assistant Commissioner and other staff of the appellant were engaged in the election of State Legislative Assembly and due to this reason, delay occurred in filing appeal. The delay