IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. DCIT TDS, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Cit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Bhopal Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) M/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Dcit/Jcit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Indore Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

250 by CIT(Appeal)-II, Indore [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of order dated 28.07.2014 passed by DCIT (TDS), Indore [“AO”] u/s 201(1)/(1A) pursuant to the aforesaid revision-order dated 27.03.2014 passed by CIT (TDS), Bhopal u/s 263. 2. The background facts leading to these appeals are summed up as under: (i) ITA No. 415/Ind/2014

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, INDORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

250/- as given in section 115BBC(1)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, the balance anonymous donations amounting to Rs. 20,50,90,750/- are charged to tax at the rate of thirty per cent as per provisions of section 115BBC of the Act. I am also satisfied that the assessee has committed default within the meaning of the provisions

THE DCIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, BHOPAL vs. M/S. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

250/- as given in section 115BBC(1)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, the balance anonymous donations amounting to Rs. 20,50,90,750/- are charged to tax at the rate of thirty per cent as per provisions of section 115BBC of the Act. I am also satisfied that the assessee has committed default within the meaning of the provisions

M/S DHAR AUTHOMOTIVE PVT. LTD,INDORE vs. DCIT TDS, INDORE

In the result, the second issue for lower/non-deduction of TCS

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

1) & 201 (1A) of the Act on the amounts paid by the assessee towards operation & maintenance of windmill machines. This issue is common for ITANos. 101, 102 & 103/Ind/2018. 5. Second issue only pertains to A.Y. 2013-14 in ITANo.101/Ind/2018 for lower deduction of tax collected at source. 6. Apropos to first common issue relating to rate of deduction

M/S DHAR AUTHOMOTIVE PVT. LTD,INDORE vs. DCIT TDS, INDORE

In the result, the second issue for lower/non-deduction of TCS

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

1) & 201 (1A) of the Act on the amounts paid by the assessee towards operation & maintenance of windmill machines. This issue is common for ITANos. 101, 102 & 103/Ind/2018. 5. Second issue only pertains to A.Y. 2013-14 in ITANo.101/Ind/2018 for lower deduction of tax collected at source. 6. Apropos to first common issue relating to rate of deduction

M/S DHAR AUTHOMOTIVE PVT. LTD,INDORE vs. DCIT TDS, INDORE

In the result, the second issue for lower/non-deduction of TCS

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

1) & 201 (1A) of the Act on the amounts paid by the assessee towards operation & maintenance of windmill machines. This issue is common for ITANos. 101, 102 & 103/Ind/2018. 5. Second issue only pertains to A.Y. 2013-14 in ITANo.101/Ind/2018 for lower deduction of tax collected at source. 6. Apropos to first common issue relating to rate of deduction

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

TDS on several other payments made during the year and consequently, no disallowance was called for under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 9.1 We further find that the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of the assessee itself for the A.Y. 2009-10 vide order dated 10.11.2014 approved the net profit rate of 5% in the business carried

THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

TDS on several other payments made during the year and consequently, no disallowance was called for under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 9.1 We further find that the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of the assessee itself for the A.Y. 2009-10 vide order dated 10.11.2014 approved the net profit rate of 5% in the business carried

THE AIT,ENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SURYA INFRAVENTURE P LTD, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

TDS on several other payments made during the year and consequently, no disallowance was called for under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 9.1 We further find that the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of the assessee itself for the A.Y. 2009-10 vide order dated 10.11.2014 approved the net profit rate of 5% in the business carried

SHIVGANGA DRILLERS P LTD,INDORE vs. CPC , BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 199 of the Income Tax Act since the corresponding income was duly offered for tax in the assessment year 2017-18 itself. c) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. AO (CPC) erred in charging interest u/s 234B and 234C

CHIEF MUNICIPAL OFFICER, NAGAR PALIKA,PITHAMPUR vs. ITO, DHAR

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2016-17 Chief Municipal Officer, Acit (Tds) Nagar Palika, Opposite Indore बनाम/ Bajaj Tempo, Sector No.1 Vs. Pithampur (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Tan: Bplc01981A Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27/02/2026

TDS @ 10% u/s 194J of the Act on professional services provided by the above persons for financial year under consideration.” 4. Thereafter, Ld. AR carried us to following paras of order passed by CIT(A): “5.1. In the instant case, total non-compliance on the part of the appellant leaves me with no option other than to decide the appeal

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&

250 (Guj.) and relied upon by the Ld. AO, Hon'ble’ High Court did not laid any law in respect of merits of the deduction u/s 80IA(4). Further, it is submitted that subsequent to the order of the AO and CIT(A), Rajkot Bench of Tribunal has allowed deduction u/s 80IA(4) in the case of Katira Construction

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&

250 (Guj.) and relied upon by the Ld. AO, Hon'ble’ High Court did not laid any law in respect of merits of the deduction u/s 80IA(4). Further, it is submitted that subsequent to the order of the AO and CIT(A), Rajkot Bench of Tribunal has allowed deduction u/s 80IA(4) in the case of Katira Construction

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&

250 (Guj.) and relied upon by the Ld. AO, Hon'ble’ High Court did not laid any law in respect of merits of the deduction u/s 80IA(4). Further, it is submitted that subsequent to the order of the AO and CIT(A), Rajkot Bench of Tribunal has allowed deduction u/s 80IA(4) in the case of Katira Construction

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&

250 (Guj.) and relied upon by the Ld. AO, Hon'ble’ High Court did not laid any law in respect of merits of the deduction u/s 80IA(4). Further, it is submitted that subsequent to the order of the AO and CIT(A), Rajkot Bench of Tribunal has allowed deduction u/s 80IA(4) in the case of Katira Construction

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&

250 (Guj.) and relied upon by the Ld. AO, Hon'ble’ High Court did not laid any law in respect of merits of the deduction u/s 80IA(4). Further, it is submitted that subsequent to the order of the AO and CIT(A), Rajkot Bench of Tribunal has allowed deduction u/s 80IA(4) in the case of Katira Construction

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&

250 (Guj.) and relied upon by the Ld. AO, Hon'ble’ High Court did not laid any law in respect of merits of the deduction u/s 80IA(4). Further, it is submitted that subsequent to the order of the AO and CIT(A), Rajkot Bench of Tribunal has allowed deduction u/s 80IA(4) in the case of Katira Construction

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&

250 (Guj.) and relied upon by the Ld. AO, Hon'ble’ High Court did not laid any law in respect of merits of the deduction u/s 80IA(4). Further, it is submitted that subsequent to the order of the AO and CIT(A), Rajkot Bench of Tribunal has allowed deduction u/s 80IA(4) in the case of Katira Construction

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&

250 (Guj.) and relied upon by the Ld. AO, Hon'ble’ High Court did not laid any law in respect of merits of the deduction u/s 80IA(4). Further, it is submitted that subsequent to the order of the AO and CIT(A), Rajkot Bench of Tribunal has allowed deduction u/s 80IA(4) in the case of Katira Construction