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

Appeals are allowed

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

1) read with Section 201(1A) of the Act and the directions were given by the Appellate Authority. But it was found in the appeal that the TDS

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

Appeals are allowed

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

1) read with Section 201(1A) of the Act and the directions were given by the Appellate Authority. But it was found in the appeal that the TDS

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

Appeals are allowed

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

1) read with Section 201(1A) of the Act and the directions were given by the Appellate Authority. But it was found in the appeal that the TDS

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, because the payments made to each seller was less than the prescribed limit of Rs. 50 lacs and therefore, provision of section 194IA was not applicable. The demand has been raised by the department u/s 200 in terms of failure to comply with Section 200A, which deals with the processing of statement of tax deducted at source

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, because the payments made to each seller was less than the prescribed limit of Rs. 50 lacs and therefore, provision of section 194IA was not applicable. The demand has been raised by the department u/s 200 in terms of failure to comply with Section 200A, which deals with the processing of statement of tax deducted at source

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

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

section 9(1)(vii) but the assessee had failed to deduct. With such understanding, the AO show-caused assessee u/s 201(1)/(1A) of the Act for non-deduction of TDS

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

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

section 9(1)(vii) but the assessee had failed to deduct. With such understanding, the AO show-caused assessee u/s 201(1)/(1A) of the Act for non-deduction of TDS

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

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

section 9(1)(vii) but the assessee had failed to deduct. With such understanding, the AO show-caused assessee u/s 201(1)/(1A) of the Act for non-deduction of TDS

M/S. ARIHANT CHERITABLE TRUST,INDORE vs. THE ITO (TDS)-1, INDORE

In the result, we find no force in the ground of the Revenue, hence dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2015-16

TDS deducted by the appellant at the rate of 2% under section 194C of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 on the payments made to M/s Hoswin Incinerator Private Limited for collection and disposal of waste. A.4] The assessing officer subsequently passed an order under section 201(1

M/S. IDEA CELLUAR LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ITO (TDS)-II, INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Vodafone Idea Ltd. Ito (Tds)-Ii (Formerly Known As M/S. Indore Idea Cellular Ltd.) Vs. 139-140 Electronics Complex Pardeshipura, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaacb 2100P Assessee By Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Shri Gagan Tiwari, Adv Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.11.2023

201(1)/201(1A) of the Page 1 of 8 Idea Cellular Ltd.. Page 2 of 8 Income tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') passed by the Income Tax Officer (TDS) II, Indore ('AO') on the following grounds: GROUND I: NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE ("TDS") UNDER SECTION

M/S. STAR DELTA TRANSFORMERS LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO ( TDS) -2, BHOPAL

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

1) / 201(1A) of the act, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 6. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the CIT(A) erred in holding that assessee was in default under Section 201 by not deducting TDS

M/S. STAR DELTA TRANSFORMERS LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO ( TDS) -2, BHOPAL

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

1) / 201(1A) of the act, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 6. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the CIT(A) erred in holding that assessee was in default under Section 201 by not deducting TDS

M/S. STAR DELTA TRANSFORMERS LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO ( TDS) -2, BHOPAL

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

1) / 201(1A) of the act, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 6. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the CIT(A) erred in holding that assessee was in default under Section 201 by not deducting TDS

M/S. STAR DELTA TRANSFORMERS LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO ( TDS) -2, BHOPAL

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

1) / 201(1A) of the act, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 6. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the CIT(A) erred in holding that assessee was in default under Section 201 by not deducting TDS

M/S. STAR DELTA TRANSFORMERS LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO ( TDS) -2, BHOPAL

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

1) / 201(1A) of the act, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 6. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the CIT(A) erred in holding that assessee was in default under Section 201 by not deducting TDS

M/S. STAR DELTA TRANSFORMERS LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO ( TDS) -2, BHOPAL

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

1) / 201(1A) of the act, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 6. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the CIT(A) erred in holding that assessee was in default under Section 201 by not deducting TDS

M/S. STAR DELTA TRANSFORMERS LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO ( TDS) -2, BHOPAL

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

1) / 201(1A) of the act, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 6. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the CIT(A) erred in holding that assessee was in default under Section 201 by not deducting TDS

M/S. STAR DELTA TRANSFORMERS LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO ( TDS) -2, BHOPAL

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

1) / 201(1A) of the act, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 6. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the CIT(A) erred in holding that assessee was in default under Section 201 by not deducting TDS