SHRI SURENDRA SINGH BHATIA,INDORE vs. THE JCIT-3, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

E R PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 02.12.2016 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Indore (in short ‘CIT(A)’), arising out of the order dated 06.03.2013 passed by the JCIT, Range-3, Indore, under section 271AAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter

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

E R Per B.M. Biyani, AM: Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 04.11.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 13.09.2022 passed by learned Assessment Unit of Income-tax Department [“AO”] u/s 143(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year

M/S MADHYA PRADESH MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT, BHOPAL

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

TDS at Rs.4152136/-. 7. That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the levy of interest u/s. 220(2) at Rs.60080/- is unlawful and the said levy be kindly cancelled. 3. Ground Nos.1 to 5 relate to confirmation of disallowance of the assessee’s claim by the Assessing Officer for deduction u/s 11 holding that

M/S MADHYA PRADESH MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

TDS at Rs.4152136/-. 7. That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the levy of interest u/s. 220(2) at Rs.60080/- is unlawful and the said levy be kindly cancelled. 3. Ground Nos.1 to 5 relate to confirmation of disallowance of the assessee’s claim by the Assessing Officer for deduction u/s 11 holding that

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

Appeals are allowed

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

e-mail dated 11th April 2022 on the above-mentioned subject. In this regard, I am directed to convey that SLP in the case of CIT (TDS), Bangalore v. Vodafone South Ltd. (2016) 72 Taxmann.com 347 (Kar) has not been approved by Board for the following reason: "As it has been repeatedly established in various cases, involving the issue

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

Appeals are allowed

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

e-mail dated 11th April 2022 on the above-mentioned subject. In this regard, I am directed to convey that SLP in the case of CIT (TDS), Bangalore v. Vodafone South Ltd. (2016) 72 Taxmann.com 347 (Kar) has not been approved by Board for the following reason: "As it has been repeatedly established in various cases, involving the issue

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

Appeals are allowed

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

e-mail dated 11th April 2022 on the above-mentioned subject. In this regard, I am directed to convey that SLP in the case of CIT (TDS), Bangalore v. Vodafone South Ltd. (2016) 72 Taxmann.com 347 (Kar) has not been approved by Board for the following reason: "As it has been repeatedly established in various cases, involving the issue

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) of the Act also do not survive.' 21. We find, the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the following decisions also have held that no fee can be levied u/s 234E in terms of section 200A where the date of filing of TDS statement and date of intimation are much prior to 1- 6-2015:- (i) Prakash Industries

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) of the Act also do not survive.' 21. We find, the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the following decisions also have held that no fee can be levied u/s 234E in terms of section 200A where the date of filing of TDS statement and date of intimation are much prior to 1- 6-2015:- (i) Prakash Industries

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)

e-mail dated 11th April 2022 on the above-mentioned subject. In this regard, I am directed to convey that SLP in the case of CIT (TDS), Bangalore v. Vodafone South Ltd. (2016) 72 Taxmann.com 347 (Kar) has not been approved by Board for the following reason: "As it has been repeatedly established in various cases, involving the issue

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)

e-mail dated 11th April 2022 on the above-mentioned subject. In this regard, I am directed to convey that SLP in the case of CIT (TDS), Bangalore v. Vodafone South Ltd. (2016) 72 Taxmann.com 347 (Kar) has not been approved by Board for the following reason: "As it has been repeatedly established in various cases, involving the issue

PATIDAR BUILDER PVT LTD,BHOPAL vs. AO, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed partly

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2011-12 Patidar Builder Pvt. Ltd. Assessing Officer E-4/382 Arera Colony, (Jcit-Range-2, Bhopal) बनाम/ Bhopal Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaacp8931A Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah & Soumya Bumb, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.07.2025

22)(e) and cannot be sustained. In view of this, we delete the addition made by AO. This ground is allowed. Ground No. 3: 11. In this ground, the assessee challenges the addition of Rs. 14,29,710/- made by AO and upheld by CIT(A) u/s 41(1). 12. The AO has made this addition on Pages

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

E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM: These two appeals by the assessee are directed against two separate orders dated Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi both dated 13.02.2023 for A.Y.2017-18 & 2018-19 respectively. The assesse has raised common grounds in these appeals the grounds raised for A.Y.2017-18 are as under: “1.That on the facts

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

E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM: These two appeals by the assessee are directed against two separate orders dated Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi both dated 13.02.2023 for A.Y.2017-18 & 2018-19 respectively. The assesse has raised common grounds in these appeals the grounds raised for A.Y.2017-18 are as under: “1.That on the facts

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

E R PER MANISH BORAD, A.M.: The above captioned appeals filed at the instance of the assessee are directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal) (in short ‘Ld. CIT(A)]-13, Ahmedabad dated 31.10.2019 which is arising out of the order u/s 143(3) of the Birla Corporation Ltd. ITA No.33 & 34/Ind/2020 Income

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

E R PER MANISH BORAD, A.M.: The above captioned appeals filed at the instance of the assessee are directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal) (in short ‘Ld. CIT(A)]-13, Ahmedabad dated 31.10.2019 which is arising out of the order u/s 143(3) of the Birla Corporation Ltd. ITA No.33 & 34/Ind/2020 Income

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

E R Per Bench: These appeals by the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are directed against the order dated 02.07.2018 of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-II, Indore arising from reassessment for A.Y.2010-11 & 2011-12. 2. In the cross objection the assesse has raised legal grounds challenging the validity of the order passed

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

E-filing acknowledgements. 4.17 Further, in the concluding para of the assessment order, it is stated that the appellant could not prove the creditworthiness of M's Konica Gems (Prop Amit Sand) It is submitted that the ITR of Shri Amit Sand have already been filed before the Learned 40 by the appellant company as well as by the lender