M/S. ARIHANT CHERITABLE TRUST,INDORE vs. THE ITO (TDS)-1, INDORE

In the result, we find no force in the ground of the Revenue, hence dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2015-16

section 194J of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 and therefore, he determined demand on account of short-deduction of tax at Rs. 6,948/- and interest on such short-deduction of tax at Rs. 2,073/-. Quarter-wise details of demand as determined by the assessing officer are as under: [Page No. 29-36] S. Quarter Amount TDS TDS Short

GUNVEER SINGH CHHABRA ,INDORE vs. THE PR CIT -1, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Memebr & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

14. So far as the jurisdiction of the Ld.PCIT under Section 263 of the Act is concerned, we have carefully considered the judgment relied upon by the assessee in the case of CIT vs. Nirma Chemicals Works (P.) Ltd. (supra). We find while holding the order passed by the Tribunal in upholding the exercise of powers under section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-II, BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. M/S AGRAWAL CONSTRUCTION CO., BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing It(Ss)A Nos.233 To 238/Ind/2017 Assessment Year:2006-07 To 2011-12 M/S. Agrawal Construction Co. Acit, 1(1) बनाम/ Bhopal Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.Aaefa8225H It(Ss)A No.224 To 226/Ind/2017 Assessment Year:2009-10 To 2011-12 Acit, 1(1) M/S. Agrawal Construction बनाम/ Bhopal Co. Bhopal Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaefa8225H Assessment Year: 2012-13

14. From perusal of the above finding and also examining fact that during the course of search proceedings no incriminating material was found which could question the genuineness of claim u/s 80IB (10) of the Act made by the assessee and also since the finding of the Tribunal as referred above challenged before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court

M/S AGARWAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ,BHOPAL vs. DYPTI COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing It(Ss)A Nos.233 To 238/Ind/2017 Assessment Year:2006-07 To 2011-12 M/S. Agrawal Construction Co. Acit, 1(1) बनाम/ Bhopal Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.Aaefa8225H It(Ss)A No.224 To 226/Ind/2017 Assessment Year:2009-10 To 2011-12 Acit, 1(1) M/S. Agrawal Construction बनाम/ Bhopal Co. Bhopal Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaefa8225H Assessment Year: 2012-13

14. From perusal of the above finding and also examining fact that during the course of search proceedings no incriminating material was found which could question the genuineness of claim u/s 80IB (10) of the Act made by the assessee and also since the finding of the Tribunal as referred above challenged before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court

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

SMT. SHARDA,HARSUD, KHANDWA vs. THE PCIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeals of the assesse in ITANo

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Premnarayan Pcit (1) 31, Somgaon Khurd, Aaykar Bhawan Harsud, Vs. Indore Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Cjzpp1164J Smt. Sharda Pcit (1) A/45, Naya Harsud, Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Khandwa Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Fdxps2997P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2024

section 288 of the Act. You may also Page 13 of 26 ITANo.262 & 263/Ind/2024 Shri Premnarayan & Smt. Sharda make your written submissions in lieu of personal appearance. If such written submissions are received on or before the scheduled date, the same shall be duly considered for the purpose of the proceedings u/s 263 of the Act. 6. Please note that

SHRI PREMNARAYAN,HARSUD, KHANDWA vs. THE PCIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeals of the assesse in ITANo

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Premnarayan Pcit (1) 31, Somgaon Khurd, Aaykar Bhawan Harsud, Vs. Indore Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Cjzpp1164J Smt. Sharda Pcit (1) A/45, Naya Harsud, Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Khandwa Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Fdxps2997P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2024

section 288 of the Act. You may also Page 13 of 26 ITANo.262 & 263/Ind/2024 Shri Premnarayan & Smt. Sharda make your written submissions in lieu of personal appearance. If such written submissions are received on or before the scheduled date, the same shall be duly considered for the purpose of the proceedings u/s 263 of the Act. 6. Please note that

M/S DHAR AUTHOMOTIVE PVT. LTD,INDORE vs. DCIT TDS, INDORE

In the result, the second issue for lower/non-deduction of TCS

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

TDS survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted on 26.05.2014 to verify the TCS/TCS compliances of the assessee. It entered into contract for Operation and maintenance of the plants with M/s RRB Energy Limited, M/s. Enercon (India) Limited & M/s Kelvin Energy Solution. The assessee applied section 194C of the Act and deducted tax @ 2% on the payments made. However

M/S DHAR AUTHOMOTIVE PVT. LTD,INDORE vs. DCIT TDS, INDORE

In the result, the second issue for lower/non-deduction of TCS

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

TDS survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted on 26.05.2014 to verify the TCS/TCS compliances of the assessee. It entered into contract for Operation and maintenance of the plants with M/s RRB Energy Limited, M/s. Enercon (India) Limited & M/s Kelvin Energy Solution. The assessee applied section 194C of the Act and deducted tax @ 2% on the payments made. However

M/S DHAR AUTHOMOTIVE PVT. LTD,INDORE vs. DCIT TDS, INDORE

In the result, the second issue for lower/non-deduction of TCS

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

TDS survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted on 26.05.2014 to verify the TCS/TCS compliances of the assessee. It entered into contract for Operation and maintenance of the plants with M/s RRB Energy Limited, M/s. Enercon (India) Limited & M/s Kelvin Energy Solution. The assessee applied section 194C of the Act and deducted tax @ 2% on the payments made. However

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

Appeals are allowed

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

14 of 55 [[[ ITA No. 109 to 111/Ind/2023 – AYs 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2013-14 M/s Idea Cellular Ltd., Indore. involved in the interconnect whether it was for data link or roaming, the charges paid could not be held to be in the nature of fees for technical services for the purposes of section 9(1) and section 194J

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

Appeals are allowed

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

14 of 55 [[[ ITA No. 109 to 111/Ind/2023 – AYs 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2013-14 M/s Idea Cellular Ltd., Indore. involved in the interconnect whether it was for data link or roaming, the charges paid could not be held to be in the nature of fees for technical services for the purposes of section 9(1) and section 194J

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

Appeals are allowed

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

14 of 55 [[[ ITA No. 109 to 111/Ind/2023 – AYs 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2013-14 M/s Idea Cellular Ltd., Indore. involved in the interconnect whether it was for data link or roaming, the charges paid could not be held to be in the nature of fees for technical services for the purposes of section 9(1) and section 194J

M/S. PADMAWATI RETAIL INDIA (P) LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-CPC-TDS GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all these appeals at the instance of assessee(s)are allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

TDS)', in ITA No. 442/Agra/2017 dtd. 09.04.2018 authored by one of us (the Ld. J.M.). The relevant part of the order is reproduced as follows: "3. Heard. The ld. CIT(A), while deciding the matter against the assessee, has placed reliance on 'Rajesh Kaurani vs. UOI', 83 Taxmann.com 137 (Guj), wherein, it has been held that section 14

M/S. PADMAWATI RETAIL INDIA (P) LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-CPC-TDS GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all these appeals at the instance of assessee(s)are allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

TDS)', in ITA No. 442/Agra/2017 dtd. 09.04.2018 authored by one of us (the Ld. J.M.). The relevant part of the order is reproduced as follows: "3. Heard. The ld. CIT(A), while deciding the matter against the assessee, has placed reliance on 'Rajesh Kaurani vs. UOI', 83 Taxmann.com 137 (Guj), wherein, it has been held that section 14

M/S. PADMAWATI RETAIL INDIA (P) LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-CPC-TDS GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all these appeals at the instance of assessee(s)are allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

TDS)', in ITA No. 442/Agra/2017 dtd. 09.04.2018 authored by one of us (the Ld. J.M.). The relevant part of the order is reproduced as follows: "3. Heard. The ld. CIT(A), while deciding the matter against the assessee, has placed reliance on 'Rajesh Kaurani vs. UOI', 83 Taxmann.com 137 (Guj), wherein, it has been held that section 14