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 on facts and in law in confirming that interest under section 220(2) is levied on a calendar month basis instead of number of days (30 or 31, as the case may be): 2.1.Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating

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 on facts and in law in confirming that interest under section 220(2) is levied on a calendar month basis instead of number of days (30 or 31, as the case may be): 2.1.Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating

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 -4 of financial Year 2013-14, respectively without properly appreciating the facts of the case. 5 That under the facts and circumstances Ld. CIT(A) NFAC erred in not adjudicating the appeal on merits. 6

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)-I, Indore : Respondent Appellant by S/Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Arpit Gaur, CAs Respondent by Shri R.S. Ambedkar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 23.11.2020 Date of Pronouncement: 24 .11.2020 आदेश / O R D E R PER BENCH: ITANos. 574 to 579/Ind/2019 Madhya Pradesh Today Media Pvt. Ltd The above captioned 6 appeals are at the instance of assessee

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)-I, Indore : Respondent Appellant by S/Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Arpit Gaur, CAs Respondent by Shri R.S. Ambedkar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 23.11.2020 Date of Pronouncement: 24 .11.2020 आदेश / O R D E R PER BENCH: ITANos. 574 to 579/Ind/2019 Madhya Pradesh Today Media Pvt. Ltd The above captioned 6 appeals are at the instance of assessee

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)-I, Indore : Respondent Appellant by S/Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Arpit Gaur, CAs Respondent by Shri R.S. Ambedkar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 23.11.2020 Date of Pronouncement: 24 .11.2020 आदेश / O R D E R PER BENCH: ITANos. 574 to 579/Ind/2019 Madhya Pradesh Today Media Pvt. Ltd The above captioned 6 appeals are at the instance of assessee

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)-I, Indore : Respondent Appellant by S/Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Arpit Gaur, CAs Respondent by Shri R.S. Ambedkar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 23.11.2020 Date of Pronouncement: 24 .11.2020 आदेश / O R D E R PER BENCH: ITANos. 574 to 579/Ind/2019 Madhya Pradesh Today Media Pvt. Ltd The above captioned 6 appeals are at the instance of assessee

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)-I, Indore : Respondent Appellant by S/Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Arpit Gaur, CAs Respondent by Shri R.S. Ambedkar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 23.11.2020 Date of Pronouncement: 24 .11.2020 आदेश / O R D E R PER BENCH: ITANos. 574 to 579/Ind/2019 Madhya Pradesh Today Media Pvt. Ltd The above captioned 6 appeals are at the instance of assessee

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)-I, Indore : Respondent Appellant by S/Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Arpit Gaur, CAs Respondent by Shri R.S. Ambedkar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 23.11.2020 Date of Pronouncement: 24 .11.2020 आदेश / O R D E R PER BENCH: ITANos. 574 to 579/Ind/2019 Madhya Pradesh Today Media Pvt. Ltd The above captioned 6 appeals are at the instance of assessee

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 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

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

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

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

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

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshishri Vimal Todi, Additional Commissioner बनाम/ 501, Darshan Residency, Of Income-Tax, Vs. 104-105, Anand Bazar, Indore Indore

220 ITR 226 (Raj.) has considered the aspect of initiation of penalty proceedings as under:- "We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the Revenue. Section 274 of the Income-tax Act provides the procedure for imposing the penalty while section 275 sets out the time-limit within which the penalty proceedings must be completed. Section 275 requires

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