SHIVGANGA DRILLERS P LTD,INDORE vs. CPC , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

2) and also the assessment year for which such credit may be given.” A.Y. 2017-18 Page 12 of 14 19. Ld. DR, agreeing with the submission that the credit of TDS is required to be allowed in accordance with section 199

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

TDS under section 195. 13. We notice that to give effect to the order of this Tribunal dated 24.12.2014 proceedings were initiated by ITO (IT&TP), Bhopal in the case of the appellant. As per para 58 of the ITAT's order, it was held by the ITAT that the scope of Section 5(2

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

TDS under section 195. 13. We notice that to give effect to the order of this Tribunal dated 24.12.2014 proceedings were initiated by ITO (IT&TP), Bhopal in the case of the appellant. As per para 58 of the ITAT's order, it was held by the ITAT that the scope of Section 5(2

CMM KETI JV,INDORE vs. ITO 1(3), INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Cmm Keti Jv, Income-Tax Officer, 108, Shalimar Corporate 1(3), Center, Indore. बनाम/ 8-B, South Tukoganj, Vs. Indore. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aakfc7524K Assessee By Shri Shashank Sharma, Ca & Shri Prakash Gupta, Ca Revenue By Shri Sanjeev H. Bhagat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.01.2025

section 40A(2)(b). 3. The Hon’ble Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in adding flat rate of 2% of turnover on ad-hoc basis solely on assumption and presumption which is baseless and not justifiable.” 7. In Ground No. 2 & 3, the assessee has precisely challenged the addition of Rs. 1,03,58,079/- made

M/S. M. LODHA IMPEX,RATLAM vs. THE ITO-1, RATLAM

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 185/Ind/2016 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2000-01 M/S.M.Lodha Impex, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, 117-118, Manak Chowk, Ward 1, Ratlam. Ratlam.

199 or, as the case may be, section 206C has not been given on the ground that the certificate furnished under section 203 or section 206C was not filed with the return and subsequently such certificate is produced before the Assessing Officer within two years from the end of the assessment year in which such income is assessable, the Assessing

SUCH MEDIA PUBLICATION P LTD ,CIT (A) NFAC DELHI vs. NFAC DELHI, DELHI

In the result, this appeal is dismissed

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

2. This is an appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act) to challenge the orders made by the Assessing Officer, CIT (Appeals) and the ITAT, disallowing an adjustment under section 143(1)(a)(iv) read with section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act in respect of delayed remittance of employees' contributions to Employee State

SHRI JAGDISH KUMAR GULIA,BHOPAL vs. THRE ASSTT.DIRECTORE OF INCOME TAX ,CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed

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

2. This is an appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act) to challenge the orders made by the Assessing Officer, CIT (Appeals) and the ITAT, disallowing an adjustment under section 143(1)(a)(iv) read with section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act in respect of delayed remittance of employees' contributions to Employee State

M/S DAULATARAM ENGINEERING SERVICES P.LTD,MANDIDEEP vs. THE ADIT/CPC , BANGALORE

In the result, this appeal is dismissed

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

2. This is an appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act) to challenge the orders made by the Assessing Officer, CIT (Appeals) and the ITAT, disallowing an adjustment under section 143(1)(a)(iv) read with section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act in respect of delayed remittance of employees' contributions to Employee State

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

199 (SC): The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where a transaction is purely in the nature of the sale of goods, TDS provisions under Section 1940 are not applicable. ITO. vs. V.S. Dempo& Co. Ltd. (2006) 104 TTJ 913 (Mum): The ITAT ruled that when the primary purpose Re of the contract is the sale of goods

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

199 (SC): The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where a transaction is purely in the nature of the sale of goods, TDS provisions under Section 1940 are not applicable. ITO. vs. V.S. Dempo& Co. Ltd. (2006) 104 TTJ 913 (Mum): The ITAT ruled that when the primary purpose Re of the contract is the sale of goods

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

199 (SC): The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where a transaction is purely in the nature of the sale of goods, TDS provisions under Section 1940 are not applicable. ITO. vs. V.S. Dempo& Co. Ltd. (2006) 104 TTJ 913 (Mum): The ITAT ruled that when the primary purpose Re of the contract is the sale of goods

JHABUA DHAR KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK,INDORE vs. DCIT/ACIT, RATLAM, RATLAM

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2008-09 Jhabua Dhar Kshetriya Acit/Dcit, Gramin Bank, Ratlam 204, C-21, Business Park, बनाम/ Opp. Hotel Radisson Blu, Mr-10, Vs. Indore

section 143(3) on 20.08.2015 by AO after making some newer disallowances/additions against which the assessee filed a separate appeal No. U-216/2015-16 to the same CIT(A), Ujjain and the said appeal came to be decided vide a separate order of even date 03.11.2016, copy of order is placed at Page No. 72-79 of Paper-Book

THE ITO-1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S FRIENDS ASSOCIATES, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniito-1(1) M/S Friends Associates Bhopal Shop No.32, G.T.B. Complex New Market, Vs. Bhopal

section 148 was completed on 19.12.2019. Subsequently, the AO initiated the proceedings u/s 154 of the Act to rectify the mistake of allowing the claim of deduction in respect of the expenditure on which no TDS was deducted as reflected in the tax audit report in form 36. Ld. DR has submitted that the AO while passing the order

M/S. AGRAWAL COAL CORPORATION P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT RANGE 1(1), INDORE

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

199 (Delhi)/[2012] 209 Taxman 200 (Delhi)/[2012] 345 ITR 241 (Delhi)/[2012] 250 CTR 264 (Delhi) wherein it was held in para 17 as under: “17. The significance of the aforesaid guidelines lies in the fact that they recognize that barring exceptional cases, the tax administration should not disregard the actual transaction or substitute other transactions for them

M/S. AGRAWAL COAL CORPORATION P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT -CIRCLE 1(1), INDORE

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

199 (Delhi)/[2012] 209 Taxman 200 (Delhi)/[2012] 345 ITR 241 (Delhi)/[2012] 250 CTR 264 (Delhi) wherein it was held in para 17 as under: “17. The significance of the aforesaid guidelines lies in the fact that they recognize that barring exceptional cases, the tax administration should not disregard the actual transaction or substitute other transactions for them

THE DCIT-1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. AGRAWAL COAL CORPORATION P. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

199 (Delhi)/[2012] 209 Taxman 200 (Delhi)/[2012] 345 ITR 241 (Delhi)/[2012] 250 CTR 264 (Delhi) wherein it was held in para 17 as under: “17. The significance of the aforesaid guidelines lies in the fact that they recognize that barring exceptional cases, the tax administration should not disregard the actual transaction or substitute other transactions for them

THE DCIT1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. AGRAWAL COAL CORPORATION P LTD., INDORE

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

199 (Delhi)/[2012] 209 Taxman 200 (Delhi)/[2012] 345 ITR 241 (Delhi)/[2012] 250 CTR 264 (Delhi) wherein it was held in para 17 as under: “17. The significance of the aforesaid guidelines lies in the fact that they recognize that barring exceptional cases, the tax administration should not disregard the actual transaction or substitute other transactions for them

THE DCIT1(1), INDORE vs. SHRI RAVI ARORA, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2011-12 Dcit-5(1), Shri Ravi Arora, Indore 1007, Khatiwala Tank, बनाम/ 236, Indraprasth Tower, 6, M.G. Road, Vs. Indore. (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Agdpa8921H Assessee By Shri Yash Kukreja, Ca & Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Adv & Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri P.K.Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 04.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2023

TDS. Regarding PF, he submitted that the PF was not applicable to all employees which is also a fact and therefore the assessee deducted PF only in those cases where there was a legal requirement under PF rules. Regarding AO’s adverse observations on vouchers of salary, Ld. AR carried us to a few vouchers scanned by AO in assessment