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

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

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&

1 of 11 ITA No.261/Ind/2018 & ITANo.266 to 269/Ind/2018 Idea Cellular Ltd.. Page 2 of 11 1.That the learned CIT(A) NFAC erred in not holding that the assessment order was bad in law. It was perverse; (2) it was based on irrelevant material; (3) it was un- reasonable; (4) there was mis-application of the provisions

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&

1 of 11 ITA No.261/Ind/2018 & ITANo.266 to 269/Ind/2018 Idea Cellular Ltd.. Page 2 of 11 1.That the learned CIT(A) NFAC erred in not holding that the assessment order was bad in law. It was perverse; (2) it was based on irrelevant material; (3) it was un- reasonable; (4) there was mis-application of the provisions

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&

1 of 11 ITA No.261/Ind/2018 & ITANo.266 to 269/Ind/2018 Idea Cellular Ltd.. Page 2 of 11 1.That the learned CIT(A) NFAC erred in not holding that the assessment order was bad in law. It was perverse; (2) it was based on irrelevant material; (3) it was un- reasonable; (4) there was mis-application of the provisions

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&

1 of 11 ITA No.261/Ind/2018 & ITANo.266 to 269/Ind/2018 Idea Cellular Ltd.. Page 2 of 11 1.That the learned CIT(A) NFAC erred in not holding that the assessment order was bad in law. It was perverse; (2) it was based on irrelevant material; (3) it was un- reasonable; (4) there was mis-application of the provisions

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

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

131(1)(d) from DDIT(inv)- Jaipur and after obtaining all the information and documents pertaining to the Donee trust and after verifying the genuineness of the said donation and such an order cannot be termed as erroneous and thus this issue could not have been revised u/s 263. 5· NO JUSTIFICATION EITHER IN LAW OR IN FACTS IN EXERCISING

SMT. SHWETA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. THE PR. CIT-2, INDORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2014-15

1 Nature Fresh 6,68,993 6,68,993 66,900 66,900 Exports 8.2) Copy of Form No.26AS of the assessee for the year under consideration is enclosed for your kind perusal. 8.3) That the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act on the payments as made in the year

DCIT , CENTRAL -2 , INDORE vs. M/S GREAT GALLEON VENTURES LTD , INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITANo

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

section 68 of the Act. Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the loans from the subject companies were genuinely taken and therefore, interest paid by it in respect of such loans was fully allowable under the provisions of s.36(1)(iii) of the Act. It was also contended that in none of the documentary evidences so furnished for establishing

DCIT , CENTRAL -2 , INDORE vs. M/S GREAT GALLEON VENTURES LTD , INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITANo

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

section 68 of the Act. Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the loans from the subject companies were genuinely taken and therefore, interest paid by it in respect of such loans was fully allowable under the provisions of s.36(1)(iii) of the Act. It was also contended that in none of the documentary evidences so furnished for establishing

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

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 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

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

1 & 2 raise by the appellant challenging addition of unsecured loans of Rs. 3,40,00,000/- and interest of Rs. 30,60,000/- on the same. My observations and findings after carefully going through the assessment order, remand report of Ld. AO on additional grounds of appeal and written submissions made by the appellant during the course of appellate

M/S. BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE CIT- (TDS), BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Bharti Airtel Limited Cit-(Tds) बनाम Indore Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) /Vs. Pan: Bplb1146F Assessee By Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 04.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 14.09.2022 आदेश / / O R D E R O R D E R / / O R D E R O R D E R

section 263 by saying that the Ld. AO has not examined the issue of TDS out of roaming charges? (ii) Ld. AR submitted that the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, TDS- Circle, Indore conducted enquiries in the matter of TDS out of impugned roaming-charges paid by assessee, which is very much evident from the following documents placed at Page

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

M/S BAJRANG AGRO INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, Appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2008-09 Bajrang Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd. Dcit-5(1) Vikram Tower, 1St Floor, Sapna- Indore बनाम/ Sangeeta Road, Vs. Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aabcb3958N Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dcit-1(1) Bajrang Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd. Indore Vikram Tower, 1St Floor, Sapna- बनाम/ Sangeeta Road, Vs. Indore (Revenue) (Respondent) P.A. No. Aabcb3958N

Section 43B for that period particularly in view of the fact that he has contributed to the provident fund before filing the return." 31. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vinay Cement's case (supra), upholding the decision of Gauhati High Court in George Williamson (Assam) Ltd.'s case (supra), as concluded by the Madras High Court