ADIM JATI SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI MYDT JOBAT,ALIRAJPUR vs. FACELESS ASSESSMENT OFFICER, ALIRAJPUR

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiadim Jati Sewa Sahkari Samiti National Faceless बनाम/ Mydt., Assessment Centre Vs. 01, Jobat, Jobat, Delhi Alirajpur (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaala0577E Assessee By Shri P.D. Nagar, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr

TDS from the interest other than interest on securities. Therefore it cannot be said that cooperative banks are excluded from the definition of cooperative societies by such an amendment. 30. Moreover, as reliance placed on the aforesaid decision for applicability of section 80P(4) of the Act in the facts of the case is also not possible to accept

BAL BHAVAN SCHOOL,BHOPAL vs. DCIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed as mentioned above

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2014-15 Bal Bhavan School, Dcit (Exemption), 1, Shyamla Hills, Bhopal बनाम/ Bhopal Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaaab3678G Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10.06.2024

section 13(1)(c)/13(2). Therefore, the payment of Rs. 14,65,992/- made in current year constituting just 0.21% of market value, is very much reasonable and must be accepted. (iv) The assessee has made month-to-month payment to the payees through banking channel after deduction of appropriate TDS

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

Appeals are allowed

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

2 to section 9(1)(vii) and therefore not liable for TDS u/s 194J. Against decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court, the department filed appeal to Hon’ble Supreme Court whereupon the Hon’ble Supreme Court remanded matter to department for ascertaining with technical assistance as to whether there was involvement of human intervention or not? The issue again

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

Appeals are allowed

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

2 to section 9(1)(vii) and therefore not liable for TDS u/s 194J. Against decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court, the department filed appeal to Hon’ble Supreme Court whereupon the Hon’ble Supreme Court remanded matter to department for ascertaining with technical assistance as to whether there was involvement of human intervention or not? The issue again

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

Appeals are allowed

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

2 to section 9(1)(vii) and therefore not liable for TDS u/s 194J. Against decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court, the department filed appeal to Hon’ble Supreme Court whereupon the Hon’ble Supreme Court remanded matter to department for ascertaining with technical assistance as to whether there was involvement of human intervention or not? The issue again

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)

2 to section 9(1)(vii) and therefore not liable for TDS u/s 194J. Against Page 7 of 65 ITA No. 415/Ind/2014 & 265/Ind/2018 – AY 2010-11 M/s Vodafone Idea Ltd. (Formerly M/s Idea Cellular Ltd.) decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court, the department filed appeal to Hon’ble Supreme Court whereupon the Hon’ble Supreme Court remanded matter

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)

2 to section 9(1)(vii) and therefore not liable for TDS u/s 194J. Against Page 7 of 65 ITA No. 415/Ind/2014 & 265/Ind/2018 – AY 2010-11 M/s Vodafone Idea Ltd. (Formerly M/s Idea Cellular Ltd.) decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court, the department filed appeal to Hon’ble Supreme Court whereupon the Hon’ble Supreme Court remanded matter

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

TDS credit is dismissed as non- pressed.” 5.3 The Tribunal has repeatedly taken a view that the credit of the tax deducted at source or collected at source should be given to the person in whose hands the income is rightfully and finally assessed to tax in accordance with law, irrespective of the person in whose hands the Page 13

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

TDS credit is dismissed as non- pressed.” 5.3 The Tribunal has repeatedly taken a view that the credit of the tax deducted at source or collected at source should be given to the person in whose hands the income is rightfully and finally assessed to tax in accordance with law, irrespective of the person in whose hands the Page 13

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

TDS filed to CIT(A) at Page 99 of Paper-Book. 10. Therefore, Ld. AR contended, the AO ought to have considered assessee’s facts and refrained from making any intervention with the income declared in return. Ld. AR submitted that the AO is wrong in assessing business income of assessee on adhoc basis @ 2% of turnover and thereby making

SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

2,00,63,045/- as on 31.03.2009, which clearly evident that the assessee has deployed substantial funds; (ii) the assessee was holding inventory of the projects year-after-year as depicted in the respective Balance-Sheets. 9. Then, the Ld. AR relied upon the decision of ITAT, Hyderabad in Koya& Co. Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2012) 21 Taxmann.Com

SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

2,00,63,045/- as on 31.03.2009, which clearly evident that the assessee has deployed substantial funds; (ii) the assessee was holding inventory of the projects year-after-year as depicted in the respective Balance-Sheets. 9. Then, the Ld. AR relied upon the decision of ITAT, Hyderabad in Koya& Co. Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2012) 21 Taxmann.Com

SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

2,00,63,045/- as on 31.03.2009, which clearly evident that the assessee has deployed substantial funds; (ii) the assessee was holding inventory of the projects year-after-year as depicted in the respective Balance-Sheets. 9. Then, the Ld. AR relied upon the decision of ITAT, Hyderabad in Koya& Co. Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2012) 21 Taxmann.Com

SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

2,00,63,045/- as on 31.03.2009, which clearly evident that the assessee has deployed substantial funds; (ii) the assessee was holding inventory of the projects year-after-year as depicted in the respective Balance-Sheets. 9. Then, the Ld. AR relied upon the decision of ITAT, Hyderabad in Koya& Co. Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2012) 21 Taxmann.Com

SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

2,00,63,045/- as on 31.03.2009, which clearly evident that the assessee has deployed substantial funds; (ii) the assessee was holding inventory of the projects year-after-year as depicted in the respective Balance-Sheets. 9. Then, the Ld. AR relied upon the decision of ITAT, Hyderabad in Koya& Co. Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2012) 21 Taxmann.Com

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. SHRI RITESH JAIN, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani & It(Ss)Ano.14/Ind/2022 (Assesssment Year 2011-12

13. On the other hand ld. AR has submitted that there was no tangible material or incriminating material to show that the Page 31 of 116 ITANo.794/Ind/2018 & IT(SS)A No.14 & 07/Ind/2022 Ritesh Jain & M.P. Agro Nutri Food Ltd. assessee has availed the alleged accommodation entries which are recorded in the books of M/s. M.P. Nutri Foods

SUPREME TRANSPORT COMPANY,INDORE vs. ITO TDS-II, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

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

TDS in ITA Nos.2072 & 2073/PUN/2017, order dated 21-12- 2017, which has been relied upon by the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee. 13. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi v. Union of India (supra) had also laid down similar proposition that the amendment to section 200A of the Act w.e.f