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

Appeals are allowed

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

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 that no intervention is required for providing roaming facility and consequently the roaming charges paid by the assessee to other service providers cannot be treated

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)

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 that no intervention is required for providing roaming facility and consequently the roaming charges paid by the assessee to other service providers cannot be treated

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)

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 that no intervention is required for providing roaming facility and consequently the roaming charges paid by the assessee to other service providers cannot be treated

NARENDRA KUMAR MISHRA,BHOPAL vs. ITO-3(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

182; Hukumchand Mills\nLtd. v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 232 and CIT v. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills\nLtd. 1967] 66 ITR 710, we answer the question of law in the affirmative, in\nfavour of the assessee and against the revenue, and remand the matter to\nthe file of the Assessing Offiger to determine the claim of the assessee on\nmerits

SOM DISTILLERIES AND BREWERIES LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(1), BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniay: 2013-14 Som Distilleries & Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ Breweries Limited, 1(1), Vs. Som House, Bhopal. 23, Zone Ii, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Aabcs3374B) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Ay:2014-15 Acit (Central)-1, Som Distilleries & बनाम/ Bhopal Breweries Limited, Vs. Som House, 23, Zone Ii, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Aabcs3374B) (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent)

section 250(2)(b) of the Act and in response to his notice, the AO failed to submit any report. Further, in absence of any specific request from the AO, the CIT(A) presumed that the AO did not want to attend the hearings. Thus, when the case involved hefty additions and the AO considered his additions on sound footing

ACIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. SOM DISTILLERIES AND BREWERIES LTD., BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniay: 2013-14 Som Distilleries & Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ Breweries Limited, 1(1), Vs. Som House, Bhopal. 23, Zone Ii, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Aabcs3374B) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Ay:2014-15 Acit (Central)-1, Som Distilleries & बनाम/ Bhopal Breweries Limited, Vs. Som House, 23, Zone Ii, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Aabcs3374B) (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent)

section 250(2)(b) of the Act and in response to his notice, the AO failed to submit any report. Further, in absence of any specific request from the AO, the CIT(A) presumed that the AO did not want to attend the hearings. Thus, when the case involved hefty additions and the AO considered his additions on sound footing

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 68 may be invoked which is not the case here at all 4.19 With due respect, it is submitted that the allegation that the appellant has infused its own money in the grab of unsecured loon is without any basis and not correct and merely on the basis of conjecture or surmises. It is also undisputed fact that

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 68 may be invoked which is not the case here at all 4.19 With due respect, it is submitted that the allegation that the appellant has infused its own money in the grab of unsecured loon is without any basis and not correct and merely on the basis of conjecture or surmises. It is also undisputed fact that

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 68 may be invoked which is not the case here at all 4.19 With due respect, it is submitted that the allegation that the appellant has infused its own money in the grab of unsecured loon is without any basis and not correct and merely on the basis of conjecture or surmises. It is also undisputed fact that

ACIT-1(1), INDORE vs. KRITI NUTRIENTS LIMITED, INDORE

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical\npurposes

TDS has also been made as reported in Tax Audit\nReport. There being continuous growth in the turnover year after year,\nexpenditure were incurred genuinely and they are proportionate to the\nexpenditure incurred in the earlier year as evident from the previous\nyear(s) expenses narrated in the profit and loss account itself.\nAssessment orders in earlier years were also

SEWA SAHKARI SAMMITTEE MARYADIT,BEED, MUNDI KHANDWA vs. PCIT-1, INDORE

In the result, appeal by the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisewa Sahkari Sammittee Pr. Cit-2 Maryadit Beed Indore Vs. Beed Mundi Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aaufs0703N Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 05.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.10.2023

182/-. The Pr. CIT after considering replied of the assesse held that the AO has totally failed to conduct proper inquiry and thorough examination of the cash book with the corresponding entries of the bank account of the assesse and accordingly the order of the AO was held to be erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue

DY. CIT -1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. AGRAWAL TRANSPORT CORPORATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the AO in the present proceedings were also served on this address which were also duly complied by both these lender companies. 8.4 It is seen that this issue was also raised by the then AO i.e. DCIT1(1) while recording the statement of Mr. Deepak Kalani

M/S AD-MANUM FINANCE LTD.,INDORE vs. THEDCIT 1(1) , INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the AO in the present proceedings were also served on this address which were also duly complied by both these lender companies. 8.4 It is seen that this issue was also raised by the then AO i.e. DCIT1(1) while recording the statement of Mr. Deepak Kalani

THE DCIT1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. AVILABLE FINANCE LTD., INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the AO in the present proceedings were also served on this address which were also duly complied by both these lender companies. 8.4 It is seen that this issue was also raised by the then AO i.e. DCIT1(1) while recording the statement of Mr. Deepak Kalani

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

TDS has been made by the said party on payment of the said interest. The Ld.PCIT was of the view that there was an under assessment of income of Rs.1,67,00,000/- as worked out @12% rate of interest. The issues were directed to be re-examined by the Ld.AO. 4. We have heard the rival submissions made

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL , BHOPAL vs. SOM DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED, BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical

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

182 & 183/Ind/2007 dated 12.09.2008 wherein it has been held as under:- “On consideration of the rival submissions, we are of the view that additions are ad hoc in nature and liable to be deleted. The AO has not pointed out as to which of the expenditure is not verifiable. The AO without mentioning anything specifically against the assessee made

SOM DISTILLERIES PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(3), BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical

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

182 & 183/Ind/2007 dated 12.09.2008 wherein it has been held as under:- “On consideration of the rival submissions, we are of the view that additions are ad hoc in nature and liable to be deleted. The AO has not pointed out as to which of the expenditure is not verifiable. The AO without mentioning anything specifically against the assessee made

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

182 taxman 183 (Gujarat) (iv) CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. reported in [2011] 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) (v) DIT v. Jyoti Foundation reported in [2013] 357 ITR 388 (Delhi) 5. On the other hand, Ld. DR has submitted that the AO has not utter a word in the assessment order regarding the inquiry conducted on this issue but the assessment