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

Appeals are allowed

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

2 to section 9(1)(vii) and therefore not liable for TDS u/s 194J. Against decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court, the department filed appeal to Hon’ble Supreme Court whereupon the Hon’ble Supreme Court remanded matter to department for ascertaining with technical assistance as to whether there was involvement of human intervention or not? The issue again

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

Appeals are allowed

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

2 to section 9(1)(vii) and therefore not liable for TDS u/s 194J. Against decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court, the department filed appeal to Hon’ble Supreme Court whereupon the Hon’ble Supreme Court remanded matter to department for ascertaining with technical assistance as to whether there was involvement of human intervention or not? The issue again

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

Appeals are allowed

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

2 to section 9(1)(vii) and therefore not liable for TDS u/s 194J. Against decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court, the department filed appeal to Hon’ble Supreme Court whereupon the Hon’ble Supreme Court remanded matter to department for ascertaining with technical assistance as to whether there was involvement of human intervention or not? The issue again

IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. DCIT TDS, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Cit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Bhopal Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) M/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Dcit/Jcit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Indore Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

142 taxmann.com 51 (Delhi) dated 30.05.2022 taking the same view. We re-produce below the order in entirety: “Manmohan, J. - Present appeal has been filed raising the following question of law:- "Whether the ITAT was correct in holding that no TDS under section 194J of the Income-tax Act was required to be deducted by the assessee on payment

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Cit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Bhopal Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) M/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Dcit/Jcit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Indore Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

142 taxmann.com 51 (Delhi) dated 30.05.2022 taking the same view. We re-produce below the order in entirety: “Manmohan, J. - Present appeal has been filed raising the following question of law:- "Whether the ITAT was correct in holding that no TDS under section 194J of the Income-tax Act was required to be deducted by the assessee on payment

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

142(1) and show cause notice dated 13/10/2016. In none of these notices as placed in paper book, we could find the back material being confronted to assessee as specifically requested by assessee. We note here that the Tribunal in various decisions specially one which is referred by Ld counsel for the assessee extensively in case of Moti Adhesives

CMM KETI JV,INDORE vs. ITO 1(3), INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Cmm Keti Jv, Income-Tax Officer, 108, Shalimar Corporate 1(3), Center, Indore. बनाम/ 8-B, South Tukoganj, Vs. Indore. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aakfc7524K Assessee By Shri Shashank Sharma, Ca & Shri Prakash Gupta, Ca Revenue By Shri Sanjeev H. Bhagat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.01.2025

TDS”. The AO issued notices u/s 143(2) followed by questionnaires/show-cause notices u/s 142(1) which remained uncompiled or partly complied by assessee. Ultimately, the AO passed assessment- order after making an addition of Rs. 1,03,58,079/- as under: “7. Addition on account of Business Income: Thus, the assessee was requested vide this office notice u/s 142

M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., UNIT SATNA CEMENT WORKS,SATNA vs. ITO (IT & TP), BHOPAL

In the result, Assessee’s appeals

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

section 5(2)(b) r.w.r.t. 9(1) of the Act in place of DTAA provisions and secondly the Ld. Assessing Officer erred in holding that the non-resident were having a Permanent Establishment in India without bringing any thing on record to establish that dependent Abench PE existed in light of the Article 5 & 6 of DTAA. 7. Ld. Counsel

M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., UNIT SATNA CEMENT WORKS,SATNA vs. ITO (IT & TP), BHOPAL

In the result, Assessee’s appeals

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

section 5(2)(b) r.w.r.t. 9(1) of the Act in place of DTAA provisions and secondly the Ld. Assessing Officer erred in holding that the non-resident were having a Permanent Establishment in India without bringing any thing on record to establish that dependent Abench PE existed in light of the Article 5 & 6 of DTAA. 7. Ld. Counsel

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

142(1) of the Act alongwith a detailed questionnaire were issued on 15.01.2016. In response thereof, written submission alongwith the copy of computation of income, audit reports and other details as sought for, were duly filed by the representative of the assessee before the Ld. AO. The books of accounts, ledgers, bills & vouchers produced by the assessee were randomly test

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

142(1) of the Act alongwith a detailed questionnaire were issued on 15.01.2016. In response thereof, written submission alongwith the copy of computation of income, audit reports and other details as sought for, were duly filed by the representative of the assessee before the Ld. AO. The books of accounts, ledgers, bills & vouchers produced by the assessee were randomly test

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

142(1) of the Act alongwith a detailed questionnaire were issued on 15.01.2016. In response thereof, written submission alongwith the copy of computation of income, audit reports and other details as sought for, were duly filed by the representative of the assessee before the Ld. AO. The books of accounts, ledgers, bills & vouchers produced by the assessee were randomly test

JAGDISH SOLANKI ,JHABUA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER JHABUA, JHABUA

Appeal is dismissed

142(1) of the I.T. Act, but no information/details/ documents have been filed, to explain the source of cash deposits of Rs.1,19,77,876/-/- in his bank account. Details of the notices issued to the assessee are given as under-\nS.No\nNotice\nu/s\nIssued date\nCompliance date\nRemarks\n1\n148\n25.03.2021\nWithin 30 days\nNo ITR filed in compliance

SHRI KHALID AMAN,BHOPAL vs. THE PCIT-2, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Bench: Ms.Suchitra Kamble & Shrib.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Khalid Aman, Pr. Cit-2 Bhopal Bhopal बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aarpa 4443 L Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 17.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 10.01.2023

section 22, but the Ld. AO has not made enquiries: Ld. AR made same pleadings as for Issue No. 2. (v) Issue No. 5 – There are many cash-deposit entries appearing in the bank which have not been enquired into at all by assessing officer: Ld. AR carried us to Paper Book-III / Page No. 5 where Point

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, INDORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

142(1) of the Act. Ld. Assessing Officer on examining the records observed that the assessee society is running Indore Medical College Indore and a 1200 bed facility hospital near Indore and is also conducting various medical camps. In the audit report, gross revenue is shown at Rs. 42,40,92,826/- and gross expenditure at Rs.39

THE DCIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, BHOPAL vs. M/S. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

142(1) of the Act. Ld. Assessing Officer on examining the records observed that the assessee society is running Indore Medical College Indore and a 1200 bed facility hospital near Indore and is also conducting various medical camps. In the audit report, gross revenue is shown at Rs. 42,40,92,826/- and gross expenditure at Rs.39

BAL BHAVAN SCHOOL,BHOPAL vs. DCIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed as mentioned above

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2014-15 Bal Bhavan School, Dcit (Exemption), 1, Shyamla Hills, Bhopal बनाम/ Bhopal Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaaab3678G Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10.06.2024

section 13(1)(c)/13(2) and made an addition of entire payment of Rs. 41,72,105/- and also applied maximum marginal rate. 15. During first-appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed AO’s observations and upheld AO’s order. 16. Before us, Ld. AR for assessee made following submissions: (i) That when the AO raised a query in notice

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniidea Cellular Ltd. Jcit 139-140 Electronics Complex Indore Vs. Pardeshipura Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aaacb 2100P Assessee By Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Gagan Tiwari, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.09.2023

2 of 9 Idea Cellular Ltd. Page 3 of 9 4. Having considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record at the outset, we note that an identical issue of levy of penalty u/s 271C of the Act due to failure on the part of the assessee to deduct TDS in respect of sale of SIM card

ACIT 4(1), INDORE vs. SHRI SATISH JAIN, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed and the cross- objection of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court)

142(1) were issued from time to time. Finally, the Ld. AO passed order of assessment u/s 143(3) at a total income of Rs. 2,32,69,355/- after making certain disallowances. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal to Ld. CIT(A), who allowed part-relief. Now, both revenue and assessee, being aggrieved by the order