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

Appeals are allowed

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

246 or an appeal under section 253. The limitation for the cases falling under this category, is two years from the end of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which the action for imposition of penalty has been initiated, were completed; or six months from the end of the month in which the order

IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. JCIT TDS INDORE, INDORE

In the result common ground no

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

TDS Officer be directed to delete the aforesaid penalty of Rs. 6,71,51,801/-levied under section 271C of the Income Tax Act. GROUND II: GENERAL The Appellant craves leave to add to, amends and/ or alter the above ground of appeal at the time of hearing. 6. Briefly stated facts as culled out from the records are that

IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. JCIT TDS INDORE, INDORE

In the result common ground no

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

TDS Officer be directed to delete the aforesaid penalty of Rs. 6,71,51,801/-levied under section 271C of the Income Tax Act. GROUND II: GENERAL The Appellant craves leave to add to, amends and/ or alter the above ground of appeal at the time of hearing. 6. Briefly stated facts as culled out from the records are that

HARLEEN KAUR BHATIA,INDORE vs. PR. CIT-2, INDORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(s) in ITANo

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Years: 2015-16

TDS, delayed payment of tax and ITR filed late and large refund claimed out of the self- assessment tax. The records show that the assessee has received payment on account of maturity of an insurance policy on which the tax has been deducted by the insurance company at the time of payment of maturity proceeds. The policy was a keyman

GURVINDER KAUR BHATIA ,INDORE vs. PR. CIT-2, INDORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(s) in ITANo

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Years: 2015-16

TDS, delayed payment of tax and ITR filed late and large refund claimed out of the self- assessment tax. The records show that the assessee has received payment on account of maturity of an insurance policy on which the tax has been deducted by the insurance company at the time of payment of maturity proceeds. The policy was a keyman

KAILASHCHANDRA KHANDELWAL,SENDHWA vs. PR. CIT -2, INDORE

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble’ Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Kailash Khandelwal Pr. Cit-2, Prop. M/S. Vikash Krishi Indore बनाम/ Seva Kendra, Bus Stand, Vs. Sendhwa, Barwani (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Acmpk2991E Appellant By Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Vijay Bansal, Nisha Lahoti, Ars Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit-Dr

TDS or depositing the tax with Government. [PB 146] 2 15 Confirmations of all Confirmations along with copy of unsecured loans ledger accounts were submitted. taken. [PB 83-116, 146] Confirmations for the large squared up loans in the specified format. [PB 142] 3 16 Details of interest Details of the interest earned earned on the loans were submitted along

SMT. SHWETA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. THE PR. CIT-2, INDORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2014-15

246 Mumbai _ ITAT Bench C) Held that on perusal of the said assessment order it was clear that the Assessing Officer had not made any enquiry with respect to the claim of deduction of the assessee-company with respect to provisions for warranty charges, . excise duty, sales tax and liquidity damages amounting to Rs.17.72 crores claimed as deduction

DILIP BUILDCON LTD.,BHOPAL vs. DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

246/[2013] 141 ITD 151 (Mum.), the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal held that where the assessee had invested his own funds, it would be assumed that the assessee was acting as a developer and not as a contractor. Relevant extract of the above decision is reproduced as under : "83 ** ** ** There are letters exchanged, written by the assessee and various Government

SHRI DILIP BUILDCON LTD,BHOPAL vs. DCIT CENTRAL -1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

246/[2013] 141 ITD 151 (Mum.), the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal held that where the assessee had invested his own funds, it would be assumed that the assessee was acting as a developer and not as a contractor. Relevant extract of the above decision is reproduced as under : "83 ** ** ** There are letters exchanged, written by the assessee and various Government

DILIP BUILDCON LTD.,BHOPAL vs. DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

246/[2013] 141 ITD 151 (Mum.), the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal held that where the assessee had invested his own funds, it would be assumed that the assessee was acting as a developer and not as a contractor. Relevant extract of the above decision is reproduced as under : "83 ** ** ** There are letters exchanged, written by the assessee and various Government

DILIP BUILDCON LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

246/[2013] 141 ITD 151 (Mum.), the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal held that where the assessee had invested his own funds, it would be assumed that the assessee was acting as a developer and not as a contractor. Relevant extract of the above decision is reproduced as under : "83 ** ** ** There are letters exchanged, written by the assessee and various Government

DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL vs. DILIP BUILDCON LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

246/[2013] 141 ITD 151 (Mum.), the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal held that where the assessee had invested his own funds, it would be assumed that the assessee was acting as a developer and not as a contractor. Relevant extract of the above decision is reproduced as under : "83 ** ** ** There are letters exchanged, written by the assessee and various Government

DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL vs. DILIP BUILDCON LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

246/[2013] 141 ITD 151 (Mum.), the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal held that where the assessee had invested his own funds, it would be assumed that the assessee was acting as a developer and not as a contractor. Relevant extract of the above decision is reproduced as under : "83 ** ** ** There are letters exchanged, written by the assessee and various Government

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL vs. DILIP BUILDCON LIMITED, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

246/[2013] 141 ITD 151 (Mum.), the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal held that where the assessee had invested his own funds, it would be assumed that the assessee was acting as a developer and not as a contractor. Relevant extract of the above decision is reproduced as under : "83 ** ** ** There are letters exchanged, written by the assessee and various Government

THED CIT ,CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL vs. M/S DILIP BUILDCON LTD, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

246/[2013] 141 ITD 151 (Mum.), the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal held that where the assessee had invested his own funds, it would be assumed that the assessee was acting as a developer and not as a contractor. Relevant extract of the above decision is reproduced as under : "83 ** ** ** There are letters exchanged, written by the assessee and various Government

SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

246/[2013] 141 ITD 151 (Mum.), the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal held that where the assessee had invested his own funds, it would be assumed that the assessee was acting as a developer and not as a contractor. Relevant extract of the above decision is reproduced as under : "83 ** ** ** There are letters exchanged, written by the assessee and various Government

SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

246/[2013] 141 ITD 151 (Mum.), the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal held that where the assessee had invested his own funds, it would be assumed that the assessee was acting as a developer and not as a contractor. Relevant extract of the above decision is reproduced as under : "83 ** ** ** There are letters exchanged, written by the assessee and various Government

SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

246/[2013] 141 ITD 151 (Mum.), the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal held that where the assessee had invested his own funds, it would be assumed that the assessee was acting as a developer and not as a contractor. Relevant extract of the above decision is reproduced as under : "83 ** ** ** There are letters exchanged, written by the assessee and various Government