BMG CALCUTTAWALA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. AO CPC (TDS), ITO TDS(1) INDORE, INDORE

Appeals are allowed\"

TDS. These\ntwo provisions, namely section 234E and 200(3), do not contain\nany provision to enable or empower the AO to create demand of\nlate fee. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and\nthe fee levied u/s.234E is hereby deleted.\n10.\nResultantly, these appeals are allowed\".\n4.4 In view of the premises drawn

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

TDS machinery fails, the assessee cannot be treated as 'assessee in default under section 201 of the Act. 2. The CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that in order to apply the provisions of section 194H of the Act, the amount of commission paid Page 2 of 8 Idea Cellular Ltd.. Page 3

MAHATMA GANDHI STATE INSTITUTE OF RURAL DEVELOPEMENT,ADHARTAL vs. ACIT TDS, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

3)\n(4)\n(5)\n(6)\n\nThe appellant\nThe respondent\nCIT\nCIT(A)\nDepartmental Representative\nGuard File\n\nBy order\nSenior Private Secretary\nIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal\nIndore Bench, Indore", "summary": { "facts": "The assessee filed an appeal after a delay of 151 days due to unavoidable circumstances. The case concerns the incorrect application of Section 194J instead

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 of the Act and accordingly treating the Appellant as ‘assessee in default’ u/s 201 r.w.s. section 194J of the Act. Page 5 of 65 ITA No. 415/Ind/2014 & 265/Ind/2018 – AY 2010-11 M/s Vodafone Idea Ltd. (Formerly M/s Idea Cellular Ltd.) 2. He failed to appreciate and ought to have held that payment of roaming charges does

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 of the Act and accordingly treating the Appellant as ‘assessee in default’ u/s 201 r.w.s. section 194J of the Act. Page 5 of 65 ITA No. 415/Ind/2014 & 265/Ind/2018 – AY 2010-11 M/s Vodafone Idea Ltd. (Formerly M/s Idea Cellular Ltd.) 2. He failed to appreciate and ought to have held that payment of roaming charges does

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

3. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No. 387/Ind/2022 for A.Y. 2015-16 Quarter-4 read as under: “1. That the ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that assessee was in default u/s 201by no deducting TDS of Rs. 33,502/- on payment made on CPRI/ERDA. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that

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

3. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No. 387/Ind/2022 for A.Y. 2015-16 Quarter-4 read as under: “1. That the ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that assessee was in default u/s 201by no deducting TDS of Rs. 33,502/- on payment made on CPRI/ERDA. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that

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

3. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No. 387/Ind/2022 for A.Y. 2015-16 Quarter-4 read as under: “1. That the ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that assessee was in default u/s 201by no deducting TDS of Rs. 33,502/- on payment made on CPRI/ERDA. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that

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

3. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No. 387/Ind/2022 for A.Y. 2015-16 Quarter-4 read as under: “1. That the ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that assessee was in default u/s 201by no deducting TDS of Rs. 33,502/- on payment made on CPRI/ERDA. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that

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

3. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No. 387/Ind/2022 for A.Y. 2015-16 Quarter-4 read as under: “1. That the ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that assessee was in default u/s 201by no deducting TDS of Rs. 33,502/- on payment made on CPRI/ERDA. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that

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

3. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No. 387/Ind/2022 for A.Y. 2015-16 Quarter-4 read as under: “1. That the ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that assessee was in default u/s 201by no deducting TDS of Rs. 33,502/- on payment made on CPRI/ERDA. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that

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

3. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No. 387/Ind/2022 for A.Y. 2015-16 Quarter-4 read as under: “1. That the ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that assessee was in default u/s 201by no deducting TDS of Rs. 33,502/- on payment made on CPRI/ERDA. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that

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

3. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No. 387/Ind/2022 for A.Y. 2015-16 Quarter-4 read as under: “1. That the ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that assessee was in default u/s 201by no deducting TDS of Rs. 33,502/- on payment made on CPRI/ERDA. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that

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

3. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No. 387/Ind/2022 for A.Y. 2015-16 Quarter-4 read as under: “1. That the ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that assessee was in default u/s 201by no deducting TDS of Rs. 33,502/- on payment made on CPRI/ERDA. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that

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

3. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No. 387/Ind/2022 for A.Y. 2015-16 Quarter-4 read as under: “1. That the ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that assessee was in default u/s 201by no deducting TDS of Rs. 33,502/- on payment made on CPRI/ERDA. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that

UNION BANK OF INDIA RGPV - BHOPAL,BHOPAL vs. ACIT(TDS), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

3)\nseparate orders of first-appeals dated 27.01.2023, 27.01.2023 & 24.02.2023\npassed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi\n[“CIT(A)”], which in turn arise out of three separate orders all dated\n26.02.2019 passed by learned ACIT (TDS), Bhopal [“AO”] u/s 201(1) &\n201(1A) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act"] for the Financial Years

UNION BANK OF INDIA RGPV - BHOPAL,BHOPAL vs. ACIT(TDS), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

3)\nseparate orders of first-appeals dated 27.01.2023, 27.01.2023 & 24.02.2023\npassed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi\n[“CIT(A)”], which in turn arise out of three separate orders all dated\n26.02.2019 passed by learned ACIT (TDS), Bhopal [“AO”] u/s 201(1) &\n201(1A) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act"] for the Financial Years

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

Appeals are allowed

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

201(1A) of the Act and the directions were given by the Appellate Authority. But it was found in the appeal that the TDS was deductible. The matter was carried further in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal recorded the reasons from paragraphs 13 to 15, which reads thus; “13. We have perused the orders and heard the rival contentions