M/S. M. P. WARE HOUSING & LOGISTICS CORPORATION,INDORE vs. CIT (TDS), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2011-12 M.P. Warehousing & Acit (Tds) Logistics Corporation, Vs. Indore Lrt Parisar, Aerodrum Road, Bada Ganapati, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Aadcm7742B Appellant By Shri Rajesh Mehta, Ca Revenue By Shri K.G. Goyal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12.03.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 26.05.2020

221(JP) wherein it was held that “there was no question of deducting TDS by 9 M.P. Warehousing & Logistics Corporation the assessee u/s 194A of the Act on the interest paid to Rajasthan registered under Societies Act, 1958 and was wholly financed by the Stated Government. Similar view was also taken by the Coordinate Bench Jaipur in the case

M.P. WAREHOUSING AND LOGISTICS CORPORATION, INDORE,INDORE vs. ACIT (TDS), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, both appeals of assessee are allowed

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

section 201(1) of the Act dated 3rd June, 2016 states about the amount of rent paid by the assessee to the payee and certifies that the rental income received from the assessee has been accounted for in the financial statements and the taxable income of the ‘payee’ is nil. This fact proves that there was no liability

M.P. WAREHOUSING AND LOGISTICS CORPORATION, INDORE,INDORE vs. ACIT (TDS), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, both appeals of assessee are allowed

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

section 201(1) of the Act dated 3rd June, 2016 states about the amount of rent paid by the assessee to the payee and certifies that the rental income received from the assessee has been accounted for in the financial statements and the taxable income of the ‘payee’ is nil. This fact proves that there was no liability

GUNVEER SINGH CHHABRA ,INDORE vs. THE PR CIT -1, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Memebr & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

221 ITR 155 :— "In the first instance it was contended by learned counsel for the assessee that the very premise on which order under section 263 was made against the assessee, namely, that the Income-tax Officer has not at all examined the goodwill account is not existent. According to him, it is apparent from the record that the goodwill

SHRI KRISHAN BAHADUR SAXENA,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO, WARD-2, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:1997-98

TDS deducted by employer-college as assessee has life threat and is not in a position to visit his college. 7. Apropos Ground No.2 wherein the assessee has challenged the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act by the Assessing Officer was bad in law. The Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that that it is a settled

M/S BHOPAL DUGDH SANGH SAHAKARI MY.DAIRY PLANT, BHOPAL vs. DCIT -1 (1) ,BHOPAL, BHOPAL

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri B.M. Biyani

221 ITR 317 as well as in the case of Gujrat Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. ITO reported at (2013) 354 ITR 201 (Guj), the Tribunal has allowed the appeal by deleting the addition of Rs. 1,25,44,938/- made by the AO. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court affirmed the view taken by the Tribunal.” 12. From a careful

M/S. AGRAWAL COAL CORPORATION P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT -CIRCLE 1(1), INDORE

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

221/- was also excessive and the further disallowance made by the AO and sustained by the Learned CIT(A) is patently wrong and uncalled and requires to be deleted. 3. Ground No.3- disallowance made out of the colliery and office general expenses for Rs. 5,65,263/-. 3.1 The ld. CIT (A) erred in upholding the AO’s action

THE DCIT-1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. AGRAWAL COAL CORPORATION P. LTD., INDORE

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

221/- was also excessive and the further disallowance made by the AO and sustained by the Learned CIT(A) is patently wrong and uncalled and requires to be deleted. 3. Ground No.3- disallowance made out of the colliery and office general expenses for Rs. 5,65,263/-. 3.1 The ld. CIT (A) erred in upholding the AO’s action

THE DCIT1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. AGRAWAL COAL CORPORATION P LTD., INDORE

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

221/- was also excessive and the further disallowance made by the AO and sustained by the Learned CIT(A) is patently wrong and uncalled and requires to be deleted. 3. Ground No.3- disallowance made out of the colliery and office general expenses for Rs. 5,65,263/-. 3.1 The ld. CIT (A) erred in upholding the AO’s action

M/S. AGRAWAL COAL CORPORATION P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT RANGE 1(1), INDORE

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

221/- was also excessive and the further disallowance made by the AO and sustained by the Learned CIT(A) is patently wrong and uncalled and requires to be deleted. 3. Ground No.3- disallowance made out of the colliery and office general expenses for Rs. 5,65,263/-. 3.1 The ld. CIT (A) erred in upholding the AO’s action