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

133(6) of the Act by the AO were duly complied and represented before the AO during the assessment proceedings. This fact has also not been controverted by the ld.CIT-DR. From the assessment order, we observe that the main allegation of the AO was that the assessee has incurred only losses on NMCE which are artificial losses through synchronized

M/S TESLA TRANSFORMERS ,BHOPAL vs. ITO(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, BHOPAL

In the result, Ground Numbers 1 to 4 of assessee’s appeal are dismissed

section 133(6) , the agent admitted that they are acting as official authorised representatives of the overseas market manufacturers from Europe and promote their products in the Indian markets. Further they admitted that they secure orders frequently for the non-resident company. - Accordingly, the AO held that the assessee was liable to deduct TDS

THE DCIT, 1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. MODERN LABORATORIES, INDORE

In the result, the CO of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./ ./ ./ I.T.A. No.277 & Co.16/Ind/2014 ./ "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-09

TDS was also deducted under section194H. In remand report proceedings , the AO issued notice under section 133(6) to all commission

M/S AD-MANUM FINANCE LTD.,INDORE vs. THEDCIT 1(1) , INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the AO in the present proceedings were also served on this address which were also duly complied by both these lender companies. 8.4 It is seen that this issue was also raised by the then AO i.e. DCIT1(1) while recording the statement of Mr. Deepak Kalani

DY. CIT -1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. AGRAWAL TRANSPORT CORPORATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the AO in the present proceedings were also served on this address which were also duly complied by both these lender companies. 8.4 It is seen that this issue was also raised by the then AO i.e. DCIT1(1) while recording the statement of Mr. Deepak Kalani

THE DCIT1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. AVILABLE FINANCE LTD., INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the AO in the present proceedings were also served on this address which were also duly complied by both these lender companies. 8.4 It is seen that this issue was also raised by the then AO i.e. DCIT1(1) while recording the statement of Mr. Deepak Kalani

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

133(6) of the Act however, Ld AO neither made any independent enquiry subsequent to their filing of Affidavits retracting the statements nor Ld.AO provided any opportunity of cross-examination to the assessee. 13.4 Learned Counsel for the assessee further submitted that during the course of the assessment proceedings, it was submitted before the AO that in respect

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

133(6) of the Act however, Ld AO neither made any independent enquiry subsequent to their filing of Affidavits retracting the statements nor Ld.AO provided any opportunity of cross-examination to the assessee. 13.4 Learned Counsel for the assessee further submitted that during the course of the assessment proceedings, it was submitted before the AO that in respect

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 133(6) of the Act. The lenders confirmed their transactions. It appears from the documents that the amounts were borrowed by the appellant for business purposes and interest was paid and TDS

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 133(6) of the Act. The lenders confirmed their transactions. It appears from the documents that the amounts were borrowed by the appellant for business purposes and interest was paid and TDS

DCIT CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 133(6) of the Act. The lenders confirmed their transactions. It appears from the documents that the amounts were borrowed by the appellant for business purposes and interest was paid and TDS

M/S ROCKBED RENOVATORS LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE PCIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanirockbed Renovators Ltd. Pr. Cit-1 7-A, Panjabi Bagh Raisen Road Bhopal Govindpura Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaacr7151G Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari Ar Revenue By Ms. Ila Parmar, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 10.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.06.2024

TDS u/s 194C and therefore, if some of the parties have not responded to the notice issued u/s 133(6(. The assessee cannot be held liable for the same and consequently cannot be parished by disallowing the claim of expenses which is otherwise supported by the relevant evidences. 3.3 In support of his contention he has relied upon the decision

M/S SANGHVI FOODS P LTD, ,INDORE vs. ITO (IT & TP) , BHOPAL

In the result common issue raised in

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

TDS u/s 133(6) to the said party, it was categorically mentioned that customers enquiry received by it is forwarded to Buhler AG (Principal) and Quotation from Buhler AG (Principal) to prospective customers. The Indian counterpart has no Authority to conclude the contract on its own and therefore the Bulher AG has no business connection in India

M/S SANGHVI FOODS P LTD, ,INDORE vs. ITO (IT & TP) , BHOPAL

In the result common issue raised in

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

TDS u/s 133(6) to the said party, it was categorically mentioned that customers enquiry received by it is forwarded to Buhler AG (Principal) and Quotation from Buhler AG (Principal) to prospective customers. The Indian counterpart has no Authority to conclude the contract on its own and therefore the Bulher AG has no business connection in India

THE I.T.O. 2 (1), INDORE vs. M/S HI LINK BUILDCON P LTD , INDORE

In the result, this appeal of revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito, 2(1) M/S. Hi Link Buildcon Pvt. Indore Ltd. बनाम/ 06, Sadhna Nagar, Vs. Airport Road, Indore (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aacch7180H Assessee By Shri Milind Wadhwani & Shri Pankaj Shah, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19.09.2022

TDS on interest paid by appellant through a duly notarized affidavit. i.) Board resolution approving the loan sanction j) Directors report and Audited Financial Statements of appellant. k) Directors report and audited Financial Statements of lender-company. l) MOA and AOA of appellant company. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) has considered various judicial precedents mentioned in his order and deleted

AL A S REAL ESTATE ANS DEVELOPERS P LTD,RATLAM vs. THE ITO -1 ,RATLAM, RATLAM

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2018-19 Al A S Real Estate & Pr. Commissioner Of Developers Private Ltd., Income-Tax-1, बनाम/ 82, Nolaipura, Indore Vs. Ratlam (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Aakca 0026 H Assessee By Shri Rajesh Mehta, Ca & Ar Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 10.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 08.02.2024

TDS u/s 206AA of the Act. Therefore, just by saying that the payee has not filed income-tax return, the authorities cannot punish the assessee. So far as non-response of notice u/s 133(6) is concerned, the assessee has very much discharged his duty by providing current address and current phone number of M/s AD Enterprises which has enabled

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

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

TDS under that section arises only if the assessee pays or credits “any sum chargeable under the provisions of this act”. Thereafter, he carried us to section 9(1)(i) which prescribes the chargeability/taxability of ‘business income’ in India. He submitted that in the present case, section 9(1)(i) is not applicable for the certain reasons, namely

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

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

TDS under that section arises only if the assessee pays or credits “any sum chargeable under the provisions of this act”. Thereafter, he carried us to section 9(1)(i) which prescribes the chargeability/taxability of ‘business income’ in India. He submitted that in the present case, section 9(1)(i) is not applicable for the certain reasons, namely