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

THE ACIT CENTRAL-3, INDORE vs. JARNALBEER SINGH BHATIA, KHANDWA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A Nos.19 To 23/Ind/2023 & Ita No.226/Ind/2023 Ays : 2013-14 To 2018-19 Jarnalbeer Singh Bhatia, Dcit/Acit, बनाम/ Bhatia Transport (Central)-3, Vs. Services, Indore. Old Indore Lines, Pandhana Road, Khandwa (Pan: Aixpb4565C) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

TDS on such expenses and has failed to do so? b) Without prejudice to the above, additional evidence was admitted without giving adequate opportunity to the AO? c) Without prejudice to the above, there is non-compliance of section 194C(7

JARNALBEER SINGH BHATIA,KHANDWA vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL-3, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A Nos.19 To 23/Ind/2023 & Ita No.226/Ind/2023 Ays : 2013-14 To 2018-19 Jarnalbeer Singh Bhatia, Dcit/Acit, बनाम/ Bhatia Transport (Central)-3, Vs. Services, Indore. Old Indore Lines, Pandhana Road, Khandwa (Pan: Aixpb4565C) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

TDS on such expenses and has failed to do so? b) Without prejudice to the above, additional evidence was admitted without giving adequate opportunity to the AO? c) Without prejudice to the above, there is non-compliance of section 194C(7

M/S. ARIHANT CHERITABLE TRUST,INDORE vs. THE ITO (TDS)-1, INDORE

In the result, we find no force in the ground of the Revenue, hence dismissed

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

TDS at the rate of 2% under section 194C of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 pursuant to a contract entered into between the appellant and M/s Hoswin Incinerator Private Limited. 1.4.1] The Ld CIT(A)-1, Indore dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant observing that the appellant failed to controvert the findings of the assessing officer given at Para

M/S DHAR AUTHOMOTIVE PVT. LTD,INDORE vs. DCIT TDS, INDORE

In the result, the second issue for lower/non-deduction of TCS

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

section is 194C for deduction of TDS under contractual arrangements for operation & maintenance of machines while CIT(A)-I fails to accept the correct provision of the Income Tax Act, 1961 & applied incorrect head of deduction of TDS for payment of professional & Technical services u/s 194J & sustained the order of DCIT (TDS) Indore which is wrong and justified

M/S DHAR AUTHOMOTIVE PVT. LTD,INDORE vs. DCIT TDS, INDORE

In the result, the second issue for lower/non-deduction of TCS

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

section is 194C for deduction of TDS under contractual arrangements for operation & maintenance of machines while CIT(A)-I fails to accept the correct provision of the Income Tax Act, 1961 & applied incorrect head of deduction of TDS for payment of professional & Technical services u/s 194J & sustained the order of DCIT (TDS) Indore which is wrong and justified

M/S DHAR AUTHOMOTIVE PVT. LTD,INDORE vs. DCIT TDS, INDORE

In the result, the second issue for lower/non-deduction of TCS

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

section is 194C for deduction of TDS under contractual arrangements for operation & maintenance of machines while CIT(A)-I fails to accept the correct provision of the Income Tax Act, 1961 & applied incorrect head of deduction of TDS for payment of professional & Technical services u/s 194J & sustained the order of DCIT (TDS) Indore which is wrong and justified

SHRI ANIL KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. THE ITO-5(3), INDORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2009-10

TDS. 2. The Learned CIT Appeals-II and the AO has failed to appreciate and or over looked. (i) That the payments made to the transporters are not in respect of a transport contract for carriage of goods. (ii) That the payment made are in respect of hire of transport” 3. Brief facts of the case limited to the issue

DISTT WOMAN & CHILD DEV OFFICER VIDISHA,VIDISHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS-2), BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

TDS is required to be deducted under Section 194C for contracts that are purely for the sale of goods." Since the payments made by the appellant are for the sale of prepared food items to beneficiaries, the transactions are purely of a commercial nature and do not constitute a "work contract" as defined under Section 194C

DISTT WOMAN & CHILD DEV OFFICER VIDISH,VIDISHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS- 2), BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

TDS is required to be deducted under Section 194C for contracts that are purely for the sale of goods." Since the payments made by the appellant are for the sale of prepared food items to beneficiaries, the transactions are purely of a commercial nature and do not constitute a "work contract" as defined under Section 194C

DISTT WOMAN & CHILD DEV OFFICER VIDISHA,VIDISHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS-2), BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

TDS is required to be deducted under Section 194C for contracts that are purely for the sale of goods." Since the payments made by the appellant are for the sale of prepared food items to beneficiaries, the transactions are purely of a commercial nature and do not constitute a "work contract" as defined under Section 194C

THE ITO (TDS) -1 , BHOPAL vs. MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA AJEEVIKA FORUM, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 I.T.O.(Tds)-1, Madhya Pradesh Rajya Bhopal Ajeevika Forum, 3Rd Floor, Beej Bhawan, बनाम/ Arera Hills, Vs. Bhopal

section 194C or 194J of the act for deduction of tax at source (TDS) out of a total payment of Rs. 3,38,00,000/- made by assessee to one payee named Page 1 of 7

SHREERAM CONSTRUCTIONS,BHOPAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

In the result the “Impugned order” is set aside as and by

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshishreeram Construction, Commissioner Of बनाम/ Shop No.2,New Shri Ram Income-Tax Vs. Parisar, Phase I Khajuri Kala, (Appeals) Bhopal, Bhopal (Pan:Abgfs5939P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Govind Rinwa, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 09.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

section 253 of the income tax Act 1961,[ herein after referred to as the Act for the sake of convenience & brevity] before this tribunal as and by way of a second appeal. The Assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number:-ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1055303506(1) dated 22/08/2023 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act, which is herein

M/S ROCKBED RENOVATORS LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE PCIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanirockbed Renovators Ltd. Pr. Cit-1 7-A, Panjabi Bagh Raisen Road Bhopal Govindpura Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaacr7151G Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari Ar Revenue By Ms. Ila Parmar, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 10.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.06.2024

TDS u/s 194C and therefore, if some of the parties have not responded to the notice issued u/s 133(6(. The assessee cannot be held liable for the same and consequently cannot be parished by disallowing the claim of expenses which is otherwise supported by the relevant evidences. 3.3 In support of his contention he has relied upon the decision

DISTRICT ORGANISOR TRIBAL WELFARE BHOPAL,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)- 1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

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

7. That proper opportunity of hearing was not granted to appellant as appeal order has been passed ex-parte which is in violation of principle of natural justice. 8. As per portal, the appeal order was passed on 13.12.2022 but physical order was not served on appellant. The appellant is the State Govt. Department and usually works on physical documents

DISTRICT ORGANISOR TRIBAL WELFARE BHOPAL,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)- 1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

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

7. That proper opportunity of hearing was not granted to appellant as appeal order has been passed ex-parte which is in violation of principle of natural justice. 8. As per portal, the appeal order was passed on 13.12.2022 but physical order was not served on appellant. The appellant is the State Govt. Department and usually works on physical documents

DISTRICT ORGANISOR TRIBAL WELFARE BHOPAL,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)- 1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

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

7. That proper opportunity of hearing was not granted to appellant as appeal order has been passed ex-parte which is in violation of principle of natural justice. 8. As per portal, the appeal order was passed on 13.12.2022 but physical order was not served on appellant. The appellant is the State Govt. Department and usually works on physical documents

DISTRICT ORGANISOR TRIBAL WELFARE BHOPAL,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)-1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

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

7. That proper opportunity of hearing was not granted to appellant as appeal order has been passed ex-parte which is in violation of principle of natural justice. 8. As per portal, the appeal order was passed on 13.12.2022 but physical order was not served on appellant. The appellant is the State Govt. Department and usually works on physical documents