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

Appeals are allowed

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

Section 91(vii). Following our own judgment, we are upholding the order of the ld CIT(A) holding that the assessee is not liable for TDS u/s 194J, interest thereon and consequently not being the assessee in default. The orders of ld. CIT(A) are uphold.” Thus it is clear that the Jaipur bench has given a finding of fact

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)

Section 91(vii). Following our own judgment, we are upholding the order of the ld CIT(A) holding that the assessee is not liable for TDS u/s 194J, interest thereon and consequently not being the assessee in default. The orders of ld. CIT(A) are uphold.” Thus it is clear that the Jaipur bench has given a finding of fact

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)

Section 91(vii). Following our own judgment, we are upholding the order of the ld CIT(A) holding that the assessee is not liable for TDS u/s 194J, interest thereon and consequently not being the assessee in default. The orders of ld. CIT(A) are uphold.” Thus it is clear that the Jaipur bench has given a finding of fact

M/S. SANWARIA AGROILS LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

160 ITD 78, case pertaining to A.Y. 11-12 held that On perusal of section 32(1)(iia) of the Act as it stood upto A.Y. 2012-13, it is evident that the additional depreciation is permissible to all assessees who are engaged in the business of manufacture or production of any article or thing. In the circumstances, the assessee

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

160 1,63,33,227 3 PARR Intrument Co. USA Article 5(4)(a) 8,05,273 2,07,32,088 4 Shanyong Heavy Machinery Co. Ltd. China Article 5(4) 14,57,982 1,24,80,714 5 Tangsang Senpu Mine Equipment Co. Ltd. China Article 5(4) - 1,88,42,739 6 Rexnord NV Belgium Article

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

160 1,63,33,227 3 PARR Intrument Co. USA Article 5(4)(a) 8,05,273 2,07,32,088 4 Shanyong Heavy Machinery Co. Ltd. China Article 5(4) 14,57,982 1,24,80,714 5 Tangsang Senpu Mine Equipment Co. Ltd. China Article 5(4) - 1,88,42,739 6 Rexnord NV Belgium Article

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

160 (MP):161 CTR DCIT v 1(1) v Modern Laboratories / I. T. A. No. 277/Ind/2014& CO.No.16/Ind/2014/AY:08-09 Page 21 of 29 444 (MP) : [2001] 116 Taxman 572 (MP), were cited and special attention was drawn in the case of CIT v. Pithampur Conzima (P) Ltd. [2000] 244 ITR 442 (MP) wherein it was held that where

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

TDS. Therefore, the first contention raised by Ld. AR is meritless and rejected. (ii) The second contention raised by Ld. AR is such that the impugned land remained unsold in current year and the assessee credited cost of same to Trading A/c by way of “closing stock”. Therefore, the debit entry of “purchase” is nullified by credit entry of “closing

THE ACIT 3(2), INDORE vs. M/S. SIMRAN DEVELOPERS, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ito-3(2), M/S. Simran Developers Indore 402, Mark Building, बनाम/ Saket Square, Vs. Indore (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Ackfs 1946 B Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Assessee By None Date Of Hearing 16.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.04.2023

1,46,303 Ld. AO further observed that no details/bills/confirmations/ledger accounts have been produced; moreover in respect of “Others” and “Other direct expenses” shown in the above table, even the names of the parties have not been supplied. He further observed that although the assessee has submitted challan of deposing TDS, but no TDS return had been filed. Accordingly

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

160 – 161] 13. Accordingly, the appellant was not required to deduct tax at source under section 195 of the Act on the payment made to CAE Simuflite Inc. USA, and hence not an assessee in default under section 201(1) of the Act. 14. In respect of payment to Camp Systems International Inc., USA, it is the world’s leading

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

160 – 161] 13. Accordingly, the appellant was not required to deduct tax at source under section 195 of the Act on the payment made to CAE Simuflite Inc. USA, and hence not an assessee in default under section 201(1) of the Act. 14. In respect of payment to Camp Systems International Inc., USA, it is the world’s leading

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

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

160 (MP) CIT v. Mark Hospitals (P.) Ltd. as reported in [2015] 373 ITR 115 (Madras)(Mag.) 16. In view of the above discussion in the light of the judicial pronouncements (supra), we are of the view that the addition of Rs. 1,59,30,060/- as made by the Assessing Officer on account of unsecured loans received during

MADHYA PRADESH COUNSALTANCY ORGANISATION LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S M.P. Consultancy Acit-2(1) बनाम/ Organization Ltd., Bhopal Vs. Block -2, 3Rd Floor Paryawas Bhawan, Arera Hills Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aabcm0090J Appellant By Shri M.K. Sharma, Ca Revenue By Smt. Vineeta Dube, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.08.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 .09.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: This Appeal At The Instance Of Assessee Pertaining To A.Y. 2013-14 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-I, Bhopal, (In Short ‘Cit(A)’), Dated 30.03.2017 Which Is Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961(Hereinafter Called As The ‘Act’) Framed On 23.-2.2016 By Acit- 2(1), Bhopal.

160/- 3. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) but failed to succeed. 4. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising following grounds of appeal: 1. That on the facts and law and in the circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT (Appeal) has wrongly disallowed prior period M.P. Consultancy Organisation Ltd. ITANo.461/Ind/2017 expenditure

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

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

SNAP COMPUTER SYSTEM (P) LTD.,INDORE vs. ITO (INTER TAXATION & TRANSFER PRICING), BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

TDS thereon remitted in per Section @25.75% u/s Rs. 195A of the incl. cess 201(1A) till Act date 1 Systems 15,82,000/- 27.02.15 21,09,333/- 5,43,153/- 97,768/- Integrations Inc, USA. 2 Systems 2,16,000/- 24.01.15 2,88,000/- 74,160

SNAP COMPUTER SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION & TRANSFER PRICING), BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

TDS thereon remitted in per Section @25.75% u/s Rs. 195A of the incl. cess 201(1A) till Act date 1 Systems 15,82,000/- 27.02.15 21,09,333/- 5,43,153/- 97,768/- Integrations Inc, USA. 2 Systems 2,16,000/- 24.01.15 2,88,000/- 74,160