M/S. BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ITO TDS-II, INDORE

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

TDS) under section 154/201(1)/201(1A), levying interest under section 220(2). 2.The Ld. CIT(A) has erred both

M/S BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-TDS, INDORE

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

TDS) under section 154/201(1)/201(1A), levying interest under section 220(2). 2.The Ld. CIT(A) has erred both

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA BARWANI M P,BARWANI vs. DCIT CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2014-15

TDS erred in charging interest under section 220(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs. 12,190/- for Quarter

MADHYA PRADESH TODAY MEDIA LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ITO-TDS, INDORE

In the result, the ground of appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

TDS statements within the time specified in sub-section (3) of section 200 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 and consequently, no late fee under s.234E was leviable. 5.That, the appellant further craves leave to add, alter and/or amend any of the foregoing grounds of appeal as and when considered necessary. Assessment Year 2012-13 (24 Qtr-III) 1. That

MADHYA PRADESH TODAY MEDIA LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ITO-TDS, INDORE

In the result, the ground of appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

TDS statements within the time specified in sub-section (3) of section 200 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 and consequently, no late fee under s.234E was leviable. 5.That, the appellant further craves leave to add, alter and/or amend any of the foregoing grounds of appeal as and when considered necessary. Assessment Year 2012-13 (24 Qtr-III) 1. That

MADHYA PRADESH TODAY MEDIA LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ITO-TDS, INDORE

In the result, the ground of appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

TDS statements within the time specified in sub-section (3) of section 200 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 and consequently, no late fee under s.234E was leviable. 5.That, the appellant further craves leave to add, alter and/or amend any of the foregoing grounds of appeal as and when considered necessary. Assessment Year 2012-13 (24 Qtr-III) 1. That

MADHYA PRADESH TODAY MEDIA LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ITO-TDS, INDORE

In the result, the ground of appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

TDS statements within the time specified in sub-section (3) of section 200 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 and consequently, no late fee under s.234E was leviable. 5.That, the appellant further craves leave to add, alter and/or amend any of the foregoing grounds of appeal as and when considered necessary. Assessment Year 2012-13 (24 Qtr-III) 1. That

MADHYA PRADESH TODAY MEDIA LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ITO-TDS, INDORE

In the result, the ground of appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

TDS statements within the time specified in sub-section (3) of section 200 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 and consequently, no late fee under s.234E was leviable. 5.That, the appellant further craves leave to add, alter and/or amend any of the foregoing grounds of appeal as and when considered necessary. Assessment Year 2012-13 (24 Qtr-III) 1. That

MADHYA PRADESH TODAY MEDIA LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ITO-TDS, INDORE

In the result, the ground of appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

TDS statements within the time specified in sub-section (3) of section 200 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 and consequently, no late fee under s.234E was leviable. 5.That, the appellant further craves leave to add, alter and/or amend any of the foregoing grounds of appeal as and when considered necessary. Assessment Year 2012-13 (24 Qtr-III) 1. That

M/S ANDRITZ HYDRO PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS V A TECH HYDRO INDAI PVT. LTD.),MANDIDEEP vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

section 9(1)(vi) and section 9(1)(vii)of the Act as well as under India- Austria Tax Treaty on which TDS was not made hence, the AO has rightly disallowed the same under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6.5. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the material available

THE ACIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PVT. LTD., RAISEN

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

section 9(1)(vi) and section 9(1)(vii)of the Act as well as under India- Austria Tax Treaty on which TDS was not made hence, the AO has rightly disallowed the same under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6.5. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the material available

THE DCIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PVT. LTD., RAISEN

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

section 9(1)(vi) and section 9(1)(vii)of the Act as well as under India- Austria Tax Treaty on which TDS was not made hence, the AO has rightly disallowed the same under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6.5. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the material available

M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS VA TECH HYDRO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

section 9(1)(vi) and section 9(1)(vii)of the Act as well as under India- Austria Tax Treaty on which TDS was not made hence, the AO has rightly disallowed the same under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6.5. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the material available

M/S AGRAWAL DRUGS & CHEMICALS P LTD,INDORE vs. THE ITO-TDS -2, INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2013-14 (Q4-Form 24Q) Agrawal Drugs & Chemicals P. Ito, Tds-Ii, बनाम/ Ltd., Indore Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Vs. P.A. No. Aaeca 2533 K Appellant By None Respondent By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit Date Of Hearing: 08.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.01.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M:

220(2) on TDS return filed before 1.6.2015 is unconstitutional and ultra-virus to the act.” 2. Facts, in brief, are that the ITO-TDS-II, Indore passed order on 06.2.2018 u/s 200A(1) of the I.T. Act levying a penalty u/s 234E at Rs.63,000/-. Ld. CIT(A), relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court

INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. PURUSHOTTAM GUPTA, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 44AB during the financial year 2014-15 which is immediately preceding the financial year 2015-16. Hence the question of certificate in respect of TDS deducted in commission does not arise. 2.17 That it is recorded in the assessment order as under: - To verify the claim of the assessee in support of assessee's reply regarding Non-deduction

M/S. WORKS STATION SYSTEMS (P) LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ACIT (CENTRAL) GWALIOR, STATION BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2017-18

220 payment of entry tax Charges on delayed supply 50,256 5. In Ground No. (1), the objection raised is in respect to delayed payment of entry tax. 5.1 It is submitted that in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Sugar Mills Co Ltd Vs. CIT reported

SHRI SHALIGRAM BAROD, ,INDORE vs. PR. CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble’ Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Shaligram Barod, Pr. Cit-I, Ah/29, Hig, Sukhliya Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Ahfpp4068H Appellant By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit-Dr

TDS at the time of Registry in the name of M/s Daksha Homes P. Ltd only. The same is claimed by M/s Daksha Homes P. Ltd in its Income Tax Return. Thus, on the excess amount of Rs. 32,55,000/- [ Rs. 1,30,20,000 - Rs. 97,65,000] , M/s Daksha Homes P. Ltd was liable to pay Income

THE ACIT, 4(1), INDORE vs. SHRI SANJAY LUNAWAT, INDORE

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2010-11

220 ITR 452 (MP); CIT v. Metachem Industries as reported in [2000] 245 ITR 160 (MP) CIT v. Mark Hospitals (P.) Ltd. as reported in [2015] 373 ITR 115 (Madras)(Mag.) 16. In view of the above discussion in the light of the judicial pronouncements (supra), we are of the view that the addition