M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS VA TECH HYDRO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

section 9(1)(vi) and section 9(1)(vii)of the Act as well as under India- Austria Tax Treaty on which TDS was not made hence, the AO has rightly disallowed the same under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6.5. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the material available

M/S ANDRITZ HYDRO PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS V A TECH HYDRO INDAI PVT. LTD.),MANDIDEEP vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

section 9(1)(vi) and section 9(1)(vii)of the Act as well as under India- Austria Tax Treaty on which TDS was not made hence, the AO has rightly disallowed the same under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6.5. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the material available

PRAHLAD DAS GOYAL,BHOPAL vs. DCIT - 1(1) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2016-17 Prahlad Das Goyal, Dcit/Acit 1(1) 18, Shyamla Hills, Bhopal बनाम/ Bhopal Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Abbpg3494L Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 31.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04.08.2025

140/-. Copies of registered sale-deed and challans are placed at Pages 21-28, 36 & 38 of Paper-Book to which our attention was drawn. Thus, Ld. AR made an attempt to impress upon us that the proper amount of TDS was deducted in relation to the transaction of purchase, which is evident from these documents. However, we are unable

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

TDS, obtaining of PAN of the Payee- transporter alone is sufficient and no further confirmation letters were required. It was also held that sections 194C(6) of the Act and Section 194C(7) of the Act are independent of each other, and cannot be read together to attract disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) read with Section 194C

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

TDS, obtaining of PAN of the Payee- transporter alone is sufficient and no further confirmation letters were required. It was also held that sections 194C(6) of the Act and Section 194C(7) of the Act are independent of each other, and cannot be read together to attract disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) read with Section 194C

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

TDS, obtaining of PAN of the Payee- transporter alone is sufficient and no further confirmation letters were required. It was also held that sections 194C(6) of the Act and Section 194C(7) of the Act are independent of each other, and cannot be read together to attract disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) read with Section 194C

DECORE EXXOILS PRIVATE LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT &TP), BHOPAL

section 195 of the Act on payments towards mandatory training for pilots, to CAE simuflite Inc., USA (CAE)- Rs.61,80,162/-. Ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently argued that the authorities below were not justified in making the addition and sustaining the same in respect of payments made towards mandatory training for pilots. Ld. counsel further reiterated the submissions

DECORE EXXOILS PRIVATE LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT &TP), BHOPAL

section 195 of the Act on payments towards mandatory training for pilots, to CAE simuflite Inc., USA (CAE)- Rs.61,80,162/-. Ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently argued that the authorities below were not justified in making the addition and sustaining the same in respect of payments made towards mandatory training for pilots. Ld. counsel further reiterated the submissions

DANISH HEALTH CARE P LTD ,UJJAIN vs. PR CIT -1, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Danish Health Care Pr. Cit-1, Private Limited, Indore बनाम/ 76/27, Maxi Road, Industrial Area, Vs. Ujjain (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aaecd5554F Assessee By Ms.Ruchira Negi, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 22.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15.06.2023

140) clearly exhibits that the assessee deposited TDS of Rs. 5,931/- on 18.04.2017. Therefore, the PCIT has wrongly involved this issue as a basis for revision. Ld. DR could not rebut the submissions of Ld. AR. On a careful consideration, we agree with the submission of Ld. AR and hold that this issue does not attract any revisionary jurisdiction

JARNALBEER SINGH BHATIA,KHANDWA vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL-3, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A Nos.19 To 23/Ind/2023 & Ita No.226/Ind/2023 Ays : 2013-14 To 2018-19 Jarnalbeer Singh Bhatia, Dcit/Acit, बनाम/ Bhatia Transport (Central)-3, Vs. Services, Indore. Old Indore Lines, Pandhana Road, Khandwa (Pan: Aixpb4565C) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

140/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of Income-tax Act, 1961, for non-deduction of TDS on freight expenses by assessee, ignoring that :- a) The assessee was liable to deduct TDS on such expenses and has failed to do so? b) Without prejudice to the above, additional evidence was admitted without giving adequate opportunity to the AO? c) Without prejudice

THE ACIT CENTRAL-3, INDORE vs. JARNALBEER SINGH BHATIA, KHANDWA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A Nos.19 To 23/Ind/2023 & Ita No.226/Ind/2023 Ays : 2013-14 To 2018-19 Jarnalbeer Singh Bhatia, Dcit/Acit, बनाम/ Bhatia Transport (Central)-3, Vs. Services, Indore. Old Indore Lines, Pandhana Road, Khandwa (Pan: Aixpb4565C) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

140/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of Income-tax Act, 1961, for non-deduction of TDS on freight expenses by assessee, ignoring that :- a) The assessee was liable to deduct TDS on such expenses and has failed to do so? b) Without prejudice to the above, additional evidence was admitted without giving adequate opportunity to the AO? c) Without prejudice

THE ACIT, 4(1), INDORE vs. SHRI SANJAY LUNAWAT, INDORE

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2010-11

140- wherein the amount receivable from the assessee is duly reflected [Page No. 142 142] 6.5 Copy of bank statement of the creditor duly highlighting the amount as 143- advanced to the assessee 145 7 Jain Infratech [Prop. Deepak Jain] [PAN: ABBPJ7325B] – Addition of Rs. 29,70,000/- 7.1 Copy of ledger account of the assessee in the books

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

140 taxmann.com 602 (Guj.) as well as in case of State Bank of India v Commissioner of Income Tax (2018) 389 ITR 578 (Guj.) wherein it was held that the deduction under section 80P(2)(d) is available to the cooperative societies on the income earned as interest on the investment made with the cooperative bank which in turn

DILIP BUILDCON LTD.,BHOPAL vs. DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

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

TDS certificate tax at source was deducted u/s. 194C being applicable to a contractor cannot be the reason for treating a genuine developer as a contractor. The same cannot detract the assessee from the position of being a developer; nor should it debar the assessee from claiming deduction under section 80- IA(4). Therefore, the assessee, who is only engaged

SHRI DILIP BUILDCON LTD,BHOPAL vs. DCIT CENTRAL -1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

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

TDS certificate tax at source was deducted u/s. 194C being applicable to a contractor cannot be the reason for treating a genuine developer as a contractor. The same cannot detract the assessee from the position of being a developer; nor should it debar the assessee from claiming deduction under section 80- IA(4). Therefore, the assessee, who is only engaged

DILIP BUILDCON LTD.,BHOPAL vs. DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

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

TDS certificate tax at source was deducted u/s. 194C being applicable to a contractor cannot be the reason for treating a genuine developer as a contractor. The same cannot detract the assessee from the position of being a developer; nor should it debar the assessee from claiming deduction under section 80- IA(4). Therefore, the assessee, who is only engaged

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL vs. DILIP BUILDCON LIMITED, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

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

TDS certificate tax at source was deducted u/s. 194C being applicable to a contractor cannot be the reason for treating a genuine developer as a contractor. The same cannot detract the assessee from the position of being a developer; nor should it debar the assessee from claiming deduction under section 80- IA(4). Therefore, the assessee, who is only engaged

DILIP BUILDCON LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

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

TDS certificate tax at source was deducted u/s. 194C being applicable to a contractor cannot be the reason for treating a genuine developer as a contractor. The same cannot detract the assessee from the position of being a developer; nor should it debar the assessee from claiming deduction under section 80- IA(4). Therefore, the assessee, who is only engaged