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

22 (Gujarat) [24.12.2024], the High Court held that where assessee, a cooperative society, earned interest on investment made with a cooperative bank and claimed deduction under Section 80P(2)(d), since cooperative bank was a cooperative society registered under Gujarat State Cooperative Societies Act, assessee was to be allowed to claim deduction under Section 80P(2

ACIT , RATLAM vs. M/S SHIRANI AUTOMOTIVES PVT. LTD, RATLAM MP

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, M/S. Shirani Automotive Ratlam P. Ltd. बनाम/ 29, Shirani Pura, Vs. Ratlam (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aancs 1007 M Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Assessee By None Date Of Hearing 02.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.03.2023

section 2(22)(e) in the above transaction. Thus the finding arrived by the Ld. CIT(A) does not require any interference. Thus the ground no. 1 raised by the Revenue is devoid of merits and the same is hereby rejected.” 9. During hearing before us, Ld. DR representing the revenue, though dutifully supported the assessment-order passed

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

Appeals are allowed

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

TDS u/s 194J, interest thereon and consequently not being the assessee in default. The orders of ld. CIT(A) are uphold.” Thus it is clear that the Jaipur bench has given a finding of fact that no intervention is required for providing roaming facility and consequently the roaming charges paid by the assessee to other service providers cannot be treated

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

Appeals are allowed

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

TDS u/s 194J, interest thereon and consequently not being the assessee in default. The orders of ld. CIT(A) are uphold.” Thus it is clear that the Jaipur bench has given a finding of fact that no intervention is required for providing roaming facility and consequently the roaming charges paid by the assessee to other service providers cannot be treated

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

Appeals are allowed

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

TDS u/s 194J, interest thereon and consequently not being the assessee in default. The orders of ld. CIT(A) are uphold.” Thus it is clear that the Jaipur bench has given a finding of fact that no intervention is required for providing roaming facility and consequently the roaming charges paid by the assessee to other service providers cannot be treated

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)

TDS u/s 194J, interest thereon and consequently not being the assessee in default. The orders of ld. CIT(A) are uphold.” Thus it is clear that the Jaipur bench has given a finding of fact that no intervention is required for providing roaming facility and consequently the roaming charges paid by the assessee to other service providers cannot be treated

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)

TDS u/s 194J, interest thereon and consequently not being the assessee in default. The orders of ld. CIT(A) are uphold.” Thus it is clear that the Jaipur bench has given a finding of fact that no intervention is required for providing roaming facility and consequently the roaming charges paid by the assessee to other service providers cannot be treated

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 certificate as compared to the PAN of the assessee who claims the benefit of such tax deducted at source, therefore, cannot be lightly brushed aside. The short question is, In a genuine case like the case on hand, is the person remedyless? 9. It is in this context, the provision of Section 199 would come into play

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 certificate as compared to the PAN of the assessee who claims the benefit of such tax deducted at source, therefore, cannot be lightly brushed aside. The short question is, In a genuine case like the case on hand, is the person remedyless? 9. It is in this context, the provision of Section 199 would come into play

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

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

2 raise by the appellant challenging addition of unsecured loans of Rs. 3,40,00,000/- and interest of Rs. 30,60,000/- on the same. My observations and findings after carefully going through the assessment order, remand report of Ld. AO on additional grounds of appeal and written submissions made by the appellant during the course of appellate proceedings

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

2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under section 200A payable under section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel

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

2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under section 200A payable under section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel

DCIT CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 68 may be invoked which is not the case here at all 4.19 With due respect, it is submitted that the allegation that the appellant has infused its own money in the grab of unsecured loon is without any basis and not correct and merely on the basis of conjecture or surmises. It is also undisputed fact that

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 68 may be invoked which is not the case here at all 4.19 With due respect, it is submitted that the allegation that the appellant has infused its own money in the grab of unsecured loon is without any basis and not correct and merely on the basis of conjecture or surmises. It is also undisputed fact that

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 68 may be invoked which is not the case here at all 4.19 With due respect, it is submitted that the allegation that the appellant has infused its own money in the grab of unsecured loon is without any basis and not correct and merely on the basis of conjecture or surmises. It is also undisputed fact that

DEEPAK PAREKH,USA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CPC, BENGALURU

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

section 5A/other person as per rule 37BA(2)]\" but to no avail, as claim of TDS of Rs.14,59,120/- relating to spouse was still denied. (copy of relevant page of ITR 2 at page 9 of the Paper Book)\n10. The Assessing Officer (CPC) Bangalore passed another intimation u/s 143(1) on 02.03.2023, processing the revised return filed

PERMALI WALLACE PVT. LTD,BHOPAL vs. ITO (IT & TP), BHOPAL

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

TDS under that section arises only if the assessee pays or credits “any sum chargeable under the provisions of this act”. Thereafter, he carried us to section 9(1)(i) which prescribes the chargeability/taxability of ‘business income’ in India. He submitted that in the present case, section 9(1)(i) is not applicable for the certain reasons, namely