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

TDS@ 41.2% along with leving interest thereby creating demand of Rs. 48,07,726/- for A.Y. 2010-11 and demand of Rs. 2,89,95,315/- for A.Y. 2011-12. Again the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) but did not find any favour as the finding of Ld. Assessing Officer were confirmed

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

TDS@ 41.2% along with leving interest thereby creating demand of Rs. 48,07,726/- for A.Y. 2010-11 and demand of Rs. 2,89,95,315/- for A.Y. 2011-12. Again the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) but did not find any favour as the finding of Ld. Assessing Officer were confirmed

M/S. ABHINAV ENTERPRISES,INDORE vs. PCIT-2, INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Abhinav Enterprises, Pr. Commissioner Of 85, Income-Tax-2, Ramchandra Nagar Extn., Indore. बनाम/ Aerodrum Road, Vs. Indore. (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan : Aanfa6300Q Assessee By Shri S.S.Deshpande, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 11.03.2024

TDS are attached. Comparative details of Trading and profit and loss account with last two years is also attached herewith. Regarding filing of duly confirmed copy of accounts of sundry creditors 9. and advance received against sales/services in excess of Rs. 2,00,000/- with a chart showing PAN, Addresses and the balances in the account of each such creditors

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

TDS was a concern of M/s Bharti Airtel who paid rent to the assessee, and not a concern of assessee. Hence there is no justification on the part of Ld. PCIT to involve this issue in revisionary-action. 9. Clearly therefore, the Ld. AR contended, the assessee had filed all details / documents during the course of assessmentqua Issue

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

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

151 from the assessee is duly reflected 7.5 Copy of bank statement of the assessee duly highlighting the amount as 152 received from the unsecured loan creditor In view of the above documentary evidences, it is apparent that the assessee satisfactorily discharged the primary onus cast upon him under section 68 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 to establish

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&

151 (Mum.), the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal held that where the assessee had invested his own funds, it would be assumed that the assessee was acting as a developer and not as a contractor. Relevant extract of the above decision is reproduced as under : "83 ** ** ** There are letters exchanged, written by the assessee and various Government departments, which indicate that

THED CIT ,CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL vs. M/S DILIP BUILDCON LTD, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

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

151 (Mum.), the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal held that where the assessee had invested his own funds, it would be assumed that the assessee was acting as a developer and not as a contractor. Relevant extract of the above decision is reproduced as under : "83 ** ** ** There are letters exchanged, written by the assessee and various Government departments, which indicate that

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

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

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

151 (Mum.), the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal held that where the assessee had invested his own funds, it would be assumed that the assessee was acting as a developer and not as a contractor. Relevant extract of the above decision is reproduced as under : "83 ** ** ** There are letters exchanged, written by the assessee and various Government departments, which indicate that

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

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

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

151 (Mum.), the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal held that where the assessee had invested his own funds, it would be assumed that the assessee was acting as a developer and not as a contractor. Relevant extract of the above decision is reproduced as under : "83 ** ** ** There are letters exchanged, written by the assessee and various Government departments, which indicate that

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&

151 (Mum.), the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal held that where the assessee had invested his own funds, it would be assumed that the assessee was acting as a developer and not as a contractor. Relevant extract of the above decision is reproduced as under : "83 ** ** ** There are letters exchanged, written by the assessee and various Government departments, which indicate that

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&

151 (Mum.), the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal held that where the assessee had invested his own funds, it would be assumed that the assessee was acting as a developer and not as a contractor. Relevant extract of the above decision is reproduced as under : "83 ** ** ** There are letters exchanged, written by the assessee and various Government departments, which indicate that

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&

151 (Mum.), the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal held that where the assessee had invested his own funds, it would be assumed that the assessee was acting as a developer and not as a contractor. Relevant extract of the above decision is reproduced as under : "83 ** ** ** There are letters exchanged, written by the assessee and various Government departments, which indicate that

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&

151 (Mum.), the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal held that where the assessee had invested his own funds, it would be assumed that the assessee was acting as a developer and not as a contractor. Relevant extract of the above decision is reproduced as under : "83 ** ** ** There are letters exchanged, written by the assessee and various Government departments, which indicate that

SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

151 (Mum.), the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal held that where the assessee had invested his own funds, it would be assumed that the assessee was acting as a developer and not as a contractor. Relevant extract of the above decision is reproduced as under : "83 ** ** ** There are letters exchanged, written by the assessee and various Government departments, which indicate that

SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

151 (Mum.), the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal held that where the assessee had invested his own funds, it would be assumed that the assessee was acting as a developer and not as a contractor. Relevant extract of the above decision is reproduced as under : "83 ** ** ** There are letters exchanged, written by the assessee and various Government departments, which indicate that

SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

151 (Mum.), the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal held that where the assessee had invested his own funds, it would be assumed that the assessee was acting as a developer and not as a contractor. Relevant extract of the above decision is reproduced as under : "83 ** ** ** There are letters exchanged, written by the assessee and various Government departments, which indicate that

SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

151 (Mum.), the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal held that where the assessee had invested his own funds, it would be assumed that the assessee was acting as a developer and not as a contractor. Relevant extract of the above decision is reproduced as under : "83 ** ** ** There are letters exchanged, written by the assessee and various Government departments, which indicate that

SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

151 (Mum.), the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal held that where the assessee had invested his own funds, it would be assumed that the assessee was acting as a developer and not as a contractor. Relevant extract of the above decision is reproduced as under : "83 ** ** ** There are letters exchanged, written by the assessee and various Government departments, which indicate that