THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

TDS payable wherever applicable. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer amounting to Rs. 75,23,136/- is Deleted. Therefore, the appeal on this ground is Allowed. 4.4 Ground No 4:- Through this ground of appeal, the appellant has challenged addition of Rs. 8,12,755/- on account of disallowance of expenses u/s 40A(3

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

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

189 (Jaipur - Trib.) Dilip Kumar Roy v. ITO, Ward-1, Nadia - [2016] 68 taxmann.com 129 (Kolkata - Trib.) Sanjay Lunawat ITA No.396/Ind/2018 & C.O.No.32/Ind/2018 New Alignment v. ITO, Ward-51(4), Kolkata - [2016] 69 taxmann.com 122 (Kolkata - Trib.) Punjab Goods Transport (P.) Ltd. v. ITO, Ward-12(3), Kolkata - [2017] 77 taxmann.com 37 (Kolkata - Trib.) Brijgopal Madhusudan Bhattad v. ITO, Khamgaon

M/S. IDEA CELLUAR LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ITO (TDS)-II, INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Vodafone Idea Ltd. Ito (Tds)-Ii (Formerly Known As M/S. Indore Idea Cellular Ltd.) Vs. 139-140 Electronics Complex Pardeshipura, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaacb 2100P Assessee By Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Shri Gagan Tiwari, Adv Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.11.2023

section 201(1A) of the Act be deleted or be appropriately reduced.” 2. The Sr. counsel of the assessee has submitted that the issue involved in this appeal of the assessee is identical to the issue for A.Y.2007-08 to 2019-10 & 2014-15 to 2017-18 which were considered and decided by this tribunal vide order dated

GURVINDER KAUR BHATIA ,INDORE vs. PR. CIT-2, INDORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(s) in ITANo

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Years: 2015-16

189 Taxman 436 (Del) 8. With regard to the contention that the amendment brought in Finance Act 2013 in Explanation (1) to section 10(10D) is prospective in nature, assessee relied following judgments: 1. Nirmal Textiles (1997) 224 ITR 378 (Gujarat High Corut) 2. CIT vs. Essar Teleholding Ltd. (2018) 3 SCC 253 3. CIT vs. M/s Shah Sadiq

HARLEEN KAUR BHATIA,INDORE vs. PR. CIT-2, INDORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(s) in ITANo

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Years: 2015-16

189 Taxman 436 (Del) 8. With regard to the contention that the amendment brought in Finance Act 2013 in Explanation (1) to section 10(10D) is prospective in nature, assessee relied following judgments: 1. Nirmal Textiles (1997) 224 ITR 378 (Gujarat High Corut) 2. CIT vs. Essar Teleholding Ltd. (2018) 3 SCC 253 3. CIT vs. M/s Shah Sadiq

DCIT , CENTRAL -2 , INDORE vs. M/S GREAT GALLEON VENTURES LTD , INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITANo

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

Section 115BBE in respect of additions made in A.Y. 2017-18 and A.Y. 2018-19 5. Since the common issues are involved in various assessment years, it would be appropriate to adjudicate the various grounds taken by the assessee and the revenue in their cross-appeals for the subject assessment years, through this common Order. We will first take

DCIT , CENTRAL -2 , INDORE vs. M/S GREAT GALLEON VENTURES LTD , INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITANo

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

Section 115BBE in respect of additions made in A.Y. 2017-18 and A.Y. 2018-19 5. Since the common issues are involved in various assessment years, it would be appropriate to adjudicate the various grounds taken by the assessee and the revenue in their cross-appeals for the subject assessment years, through this common Order. We will first take

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

KAILASHCHANDRA KHANDELWAL,SENDHWA vs. PR. CIT -2, INDORE

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble’ Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Kailash Khandelwal Pr. Cit-2, Prop. M/S. Vikash Krishi Indore बनाम/ Seva Kendra, Bus Stand, Vs. Sendhwa, Barwani (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Acmpk2991E Appellant By Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Vijay Bansal, Nisha Lahoti, Ars Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit-Dr

TDS or depositing the tax with Government. [PB 146] 2 15 Confirmations of all Confirmations along with copy of unsecured loans ledger accounts were submitted. taken. [PB 83-116, 146] Confirmations for the large squared up loans in the specified format. [PB 142] 3 16 Details of interest Details of the interest earned earned on the loans were submitted along

SHRI SURENDRA SINGH BHATIA,INDORE vs. THE JCIT-3, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

3) No penalty under the provisions of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1), (4) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation

SHRI VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE PR.CIT-1, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

189/-) was disallowed. Ld. A.O also observed that there were huge cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee during the month of February and March. Assessee claimed that the surrendered income of Rs.7 crores which was invested in the form of hundi matured during the year and the money so received (Principal and Interest) was deposited

DR. VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIR. 2(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

189/-) was disallowed. Ld. A.O also observed that there were huge cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee during the month of February and March. Assessee claimed that the surrendered income of Rs.7 crores which was invested in the form of hundi matured during the year and the money so received (Principal and Interest) was deposited

DR. VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT CIR. 2(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

189/-) was disallowed. Ld. A.O also observed that there were huge cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee during the month of February and March. Assessee claimed that the surrendered income of Rs.7 crores which was invested in the form of hundi matured during the year and the money so received (Principal and Interest) was deposited

M/S. BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ITO TDS-II, INDORE

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

TDS-II (AO) has erred both on facts and in law in applying the provisions of Section 194H of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the discount given to distributors on sale of pre-paid products, being, "right to use Airtime for a specified value". The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred both on facts

M/S BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-TDS, INDORE

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

TDS-II (AO) has erred both on facts and in law in applying the provisions of Section 194H of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the discount given to distributors on sale of pre-paid products, being, "right to use Airtime for a specified value". The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred both on facts

SHRI SUNIL SOJATIA,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE -2(1), INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

section 50C of the Act of Rs.35,46,018/-. The A.O. made addition of Rs.3,70,000/- in respect of the loans taken from his children. Further, the A.O. made disallowance of interest paid on term loan of Rs.9,38,756/-, disallowance of agricultural income of Rs.2 lakhs, cash deposited in the bank of Rs.7 lakhs, purchase of shares

SHRI PRABHAT SOJATIA,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 2(1), INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

section 50C of the Act of Rs.35,46,018/-. The A.O. made addition of Rs.3,70,000/- in respect of the loans taken from his children. Further, the A.O. made disallowance of interest paid on term loan of Rs.9,38,756/-, disallowance of agricultural income of Rs.2 lakhs, cash deposited in the bank of Rs.7 lakhs, purchase of shares

M/S LIFE CARE INTERNATIONAL,INDORE vs. ACIT-3,(1) , INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

189-190 ---do--- bank account of the assessee 8 Life Care International ITA No.335 to 337/Ind/2018 1.3 Copy of PAN Card 191 ---do--- 1.4 Copy of audited balance sheet of the loan creditor 192-201 ---do--- as on 31.03.2011 1.5 Copy of ITR V generated online on submission of 202 ---do--- ITR-6 on 05-11-2011 vide