JARNALBEER SINGH BHATIA,KHANDWA vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL-3, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A Nos.19 To 23/Ind/2023 & Ita No.226/Ind/2023 Ays : 2013-14 To 2018-19 Jarnalbeer Singh Bhatia, Dcit/Acit, बनाम/ Bhatia Transport (Central)-3, Vs. Services, Indore. Old Indore Lines, Pandhana Road, Khandwa (Pan: Aixpb4565C) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

226 & 228/Ind/2023- AY 2013-14 to 2018-19 amounting to Rs. 1,93,63,082/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of Income-tax Act, 1961, for non- deduction of TDS on freight expenses by assessee, ignoring that : a) The assessee was liable to deduct TDS on such expenses and has failed to do so ? b) Without prejudice to the above, additional

THE ACIT CENTRAL-3, INDORE vs. JARNALBEER SINGH BHATIA, KHANDWA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A Nos.19 To 23/Ind/2023 & Ita No.226/Ind/2023 Ays : 2013-14 To 2018-19 Jarnalbeer Singh Bhatia, Dcit/Acit, बनाम/ Bhatia Transport (Central)-3, Vs. Services, Indore. Old Indore Lines, Pandhana Road, Khandwa (Pan: Aixpb4565C) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

226 & 228/Ind/2023- AY 2013-14 to 2018-19 amounting to Rs. 1,93,63,082/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of Income-tax Act, 1961, for non- deduction of TDS on freight expenses by assessee, ignoring that : a) The assessee was liable to deduct TDS on such expenses and has failed to do so ? b) Without prejudice to the above, additional

THE ACIT ,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

TDS, obtaining of PAN of the Payee- transporter alone is sufficient and no further confirmation letters were required. It was also held that sections 194C(6) of the Act and Section 194C(7) of the Act are independent of each other, and cannot be read together to attract disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) read with Section 194C

THE ADDL. CIT RANGE -1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

TDS, obtaining of PAN of the Payee- transporter alone is sufficient and no further confirmation letters were required. It was also held that sections 194C(6) of the Act and Section 194C(7) of the Act are independent of each other, and cannot be read together to attract disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) read with Section 194C

THE ACIT,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

TDS, obtaining of PAN of the Payee- transporter alone is sufficient and no further confirmation letters were required. It was also held that sections 194C(6) of the Act and Section 194C(7) of the Act are independent of each other, and cannot be read together to attract disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) read with Section 194C

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

Appeals are allowed

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

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 to complete

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

Appeals are allowed

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

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 to complete

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

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 to complete

AJIT LALWANI ,INDORE vs. ACIT (TDS) , INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeals in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

3. With the assistance of the ld.representatives, we have gone through the record carefully. The assessee at the relevant time was engaged in the business of ship breaking. A survey under section 133A of the Act was carried out at the business of premises of the assessee- company on 17.9.2013. According to the AO, the assessee was required to collect

AJIT LALWANI,INDORE vs. ADD.CIT(A), INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeals in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

3. With the assistance of the ld.representatives, we have gone through the record carefully. The assessee at the relevant time was engaged in the business of ship breaking. A survey under section 133A of the Act was carried out at the business of premises of the assessee- company on 17.9.2013. According to the AO, the assessee was required to collect

DISTRICT ORGANISOR TRIBAL WELFARE BHOPAL,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)- 1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

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

226 as well as the decision of this Tribunal in case of District Organiser Tribal Welfare, Ujjain vs. ITO 51 ITJ 485. The Ld. AR has also relied upon the Instruction No.275/95 dated 29.01.1997 issued by CBDT and submitted that the board has issued the instructions that no demand visulaised under section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act should

DISTRICT ORGANISOR TRIBAL WELFARE BHOPAL,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)- 1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

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

226 as well as the decision of this Tribunal in case of District Organiser Tribal Welfare, Ujjain vs. ITO 51 ITJ 485. The Ld. AR has also relied upon the Instruction No.275/95 dated 29.01.1997 issued by CBDT and submitted that the board has issued the instructions that no demand visulaised under section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act should

DISTRICT ORGANISOR TRIBAL WELFARE BHOPAL,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)- 1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

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

226 as well as the decision of this Tribunal in case of District Organiser Tribal Welfare, Ujjain vs. ITO 51 ITJ 485. The Ld. AR has also relied upon the Instruction No.275/95 dated 29.01.1997 issued by CBDT and submitted that the board has issued the instructions that no demand visulaised under section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act should

DISTRICT ORGANISOR TRIBAL WELFARE BHOPAL,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)-1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

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

226 as well as the decision of this Tribunal in case of District Organiser Tribal Welfare, Ujjain vs. ITO 51 ITJ 485. The Ld. AR has also relied upon the Instruction No.275/95 dated 29.01.1997 issued by CBDT and submitted that the board has issued the instructions that no demand visulaised under section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act should

DISTRICT ORGANISOR TRIBAL WELFARE BHOPAL,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)- 1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

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

226 as well as the decision of this Tribunal in case of District Organiser Tribal Welfare, Ujjain vs. ITO 51 ITJ 485. The Ld. AR has also relied upon the Instruction No.275/95 dated 29.01.1997 issued by CBDT and submitted that the board has issued the instructions that no demand visulaised under section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act should

DISTRICT ORGANISOR TRIBAL WELFARE BHOPAL,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)- 1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

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

226 as well as the decision of this Tribunal in case of District Organiser Tribal Welfare, Ujjain vs. ITO 51 ITJ 485. The Ld. AR has also relied upon the Instruction No.275/95 dated 29.01.1997 issued by CBDT and submitted that the board has issued the instructions that no demand visulaised under section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act should

SURESH KUMAR,MANAS BHAWAN, RNT MARG, INDORE vs. ITO, BURHANPUR, INDORE

In the result we are of the considered

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshisuresh Kumar, Ito –Burhanpur. बनाम/ 112, Manas Bhawan, Vs. 11 Rnt Marg, Indore (Pan: Eekps7728B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah & Soumya Bumb, Cas Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.01.2026 Date Of 22.01.2026 Pronouncement आदेश/ O R D E R

226 of the IT Act. As per the principles of natural justice, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. It is to be mentioned here that the appellant did not submit any statement of facts and he mentioned in the appeal memo that the statement of fact will be submitted

RECONNECT ENERGY SOLUTION P LT,BENGALURU vs. THE DCIT 4(1) INDORE, INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoreconnect Energy Solution Ltd. Dcit 1(4) No.22, Vk Kalyani, 7Th Floor Indore Vs. Sankey Road, Bengaluru (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aafcr 0074 H Assessee By Shri Anil Khandelwal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 06.12.2023

TDS, large share premium received during the year and mismatch in sales turnover. During the year the assesse has received share premium of Rs.13,17,080/-. On query the assessee explained that during the year under consideration the assessee has converted preferential shares into equity @ Rs.470 per share having face value of Rs.10 each. The AO asked the assessee