BMG CALCUTTAWALA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. AO CPC (TDS), ITO TDS(1) INDORE, INDORE

Appeals are allowed\"

section 234E.\n7. We find that the ITAT, Delhi Bench has passed a detailed\norder dealing identical issue in Franchise India Brands Ltd. Vs.\nCPC-TDS (2020 122 taxmann.com 196

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

SAHARAYN UNIVERSAL MULTIPURPOSE SOCIETY LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

section 40(a)(ia) and made disallowance of Rs.\n1,93,28,93,248/-, equivalent to 30% of the very same expenditure of Rs.\n6,44,29,77,492/- on the footing of non-deduction of TDS out of same. Under\nsuch a situation, in our considered view, the revenue cannot take a stand\nthat the facts of the issue

MILLION TRADERS BHOPAL P LTD,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT,CPC,BENGALURU, BENGALURU

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

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

196 (AP), where the Court noted as follows: "In our view, the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal have rightly held that the assessee is entitled to the credit of the TDS mentioned in the TDS certificates issued by the contractor, whether the said certificate is issued in the name of the Joint Venture or in the name of a Director

MILLION TRADERS BHOPAL P LTD,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT,CPC,BENGALURU, BENGALURU

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

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

196 (AP), where the Court noted as follows: "In our view, the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal have rightly held that the assessee is entitled to the credit of the TDS mentioned in the TDS certificates issued by the contractor, whether the said certificate is issued in the name of the Joint Venture or in the name of a Director

THE DCIT CIRCLE 5(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S L N MALVIYA INFRA PROJECTS P LTD, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanidcit, Circle 5(1) M/S. L.N. Malviya Infra Projects Bhopal Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.29, F/F Sector, Dwarka Vs. New Delhi

Section 201(1A) of the Act, therefore, would not assume the character of business expenditure and cannot be regarded as a compensatory payment as contended by learned counsel for the assessee.” (ii) Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT(1992) 196 ITR 406 (Bombay High Court): The Hon’ble Court held thus: “3. The point stands concluded against the assessee

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshishri Vimal Todi, Additional Commissioner बनाम/ 501, Darshan Residency, Of Income-Tax, Vs. 104-105, Anand Bazar, Indore Indore

196 (Kerala) to contend that their lordship have held as under: “10. Question to be considered is whether proceedings for levy of penalty, are initiated with the passing of the order of assessment by the Assessing Officer or whether such proceedings have commenced with the issuance of the notice issued by the Joint Commissioner. From statutory provision, it is clear

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

196 (Kerala) to contend that their lordship have held as under: “10. Question to be considered is whether proceedings for levy of penalty, are initiated with the passing of the order of assessment by the Assessing Officer or whether such proceedings have commenced with the issuance of the notice issued by the Joint Commissioner. From statutory provision, it is clear

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

196 (Kerala) to contend that their lordship have held as under: “10. Question to be considered is whether proceedings for levy of penalty, are initiated with the passing of the order of assessment by the Assessing Officer or whether such proceedings have commenced with the issuance of the notice issued by the Joint Commissioner. From statutory provision, it is clear

M/S BHOPAL DUGDH SANGH SAHAKARI MY.DAIRY PLANT, BHOPAL vs. DCIT -1 (1) ,BHOPAL, BHOPAL

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 201(1A) of the Act, therefore, would not assume the character of business expenditure and cannot be regarded as a compensatory payment as contended by learned counsel for the assessee.” (ii) Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT(1992) 196 ITR 406 (Bombay High Court): The Hon’ble Court held thus: “3. The point stands concluded against the assessee

SATYA NARAYAN AGRAWAL,VIDISHA vs. ACIT 4 (1), VIDISHA

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisatya Narayan Agrawal Acit, 4(1) 25, Station Road, Ganj Bhopal Vs. Basoda, Vidisha (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaxpa 1865 E Assessee By Shri Arun Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22 .06.2023

section 69C applied only when the source of the expenditure incurred by the assesse is not explained. He has referred to the details of the various expenditures as extracted from the vouchers and bills of the expenditure incurred and submitted that most of the expenses are paid through banking channel and subjected to TDS wherever it is applicable. Only

CHANDRA KATARIA,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 3(3), BHOPAL

Appeals are dismissed

TDS 2500/-\n522425.00\nKAVITA AHUJA\n1,40,000/-\n140000.00\nLAZZA ENTERPRISES\n3,00,000/-\n6000/-\n306000.00\nMADHAV DAS KATARIA\n20,000/-\n20000.00\nMUKESH HORA\n4,00,000/-\n21333/-\n421333.00\nNARENDRA KATARIA\n4,60,000/-\n460000.00\nPATH ENTERPRISES\n1,00,000/-\n2000/-\n102000.00\nPINCH EXPORTS STORE\n70,000/-\n70000.00\nPOSHAK\n1,00,000/-\n100000.00\nRAJESH SADHWANI\n7,50,000/-\n45000/-\n795000.00

ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL vs. AISECT LTD. , BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

196/- Aggrieved Assessee preferred appeal before Ld. Cit(A) and partly succeeded. 9. Now both the assessee and Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal challenging the finding of Ld. CIT(A) decided against them. 10. Ld. Counsel for the assessee apart from relying on the finding of Ld. CIT(A) on the issue decided in favour of the assessee

ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL vs. AISECT LTD. , BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

196/- Aggrieved Assessee preferred appeal before Ld. Cit(A) and partly succeeded. 9. Now both the assessee and Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal challenging the finding of Ld. CIT(A) decided against them. 10. Ld. Counsel for the assessee apart from relying on the finding of Ld. CIT(A) on the issue decided in favour of the assessee

AISECT LTD. ,BHOPAL vs. ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

196/- Aggrieved Assessee preferred appeal before Ld. Cit(A) and partly succeeded. 9. Now both the assessee and Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal challenging the finding of Ld. CIT(A) decided against them. 10. Ld. Counsel for the assessee apart from relying on the finding of Ld. CIT(A) on the issue decided in favour of the assessee

AISECT LTD. ,BHOPAL vs. ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

196/- Aggrieved Assessee preferred appeal before Ld. Cit(A) and partly succeeded. 9. Now both the assessee and Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal challenging the finding of Ld. CIT(A) decided against them. 10. Ld. Counsel for the assessee apart from relying on the finding of Ld. CIT(A) on the issue decided in favour of the assessee