M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE CIT (TDS), BHOPAL

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

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)

TDS on such expenses and has failed to do so? b) Without prejudice to the above, additional evidence was admitted without giving adequate opportunity to the AO? c) Without prejudice to the above, there is non-compliance of section 194C(7) of the Income-tax Act by the assessee since the assessee failed to furnish, to the prescribed income

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)

TDS on such expenses and has failed to do so? b) Without prejudice to the above, additional evidence was admitted without giving adequate opportunity to the AO? c) Without prejudice to the above, there is non-compliance of section 194C(7) of the Income-tax Act by the assessee since the assessee failed to furnish, to the prescribed income

BMG CALCUTTAWALA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. AO CPC (TDS), ITO TDS(1) INDORE, INDORE

Appeals are allowed\"

250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the\n\"Impugned order”. The relevant Assessment Year is 2013-14\nand the corresponding previous year period is from 01.04.2012 to\n31.03.2013.\n2.\nFACTUAL MATRIX\n2.1 That as and by way of an order dated 09.03.2021 made u/s\n200A of the Act, by the TDS-CPC for the Financial Year

DISTT WOMAN & CHILD DEV OFFICER VIDISH,VIDISHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS- 2), BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned order”. The relevant Assessment Year is 2014-15and Page 1 of 8 Distt Woman & Child Dev Officer ITA No.251 to 253/Ind/2025 the corresponding previous year period is from 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2014. 2. FACTUAL MATRIX 2.1 That as and by way of an assessment order passedu/s

DISTT WOMAN & CHILD DEV OFFICER VIDISHA,VIDISHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS-2), BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned order”. The relevant Assessment Year is 2014-15and Page 1 of 8 Distt Woman & Child Dev Officer ITA No.251 to 253/Ind/2025 the corresponding previous year period is from 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2014. 2. FACTUAL MATRIX 2.1 That as and by way of an assessment order passedu/s

DISTT WOMAN & CHILD DEV OFFICER VIDISHA,VIDISHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS-2), BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned order”. The relevant Assessment Year is 2014-15and Page 1 of 8 Distt Woman & Child Dev Officer ITA No.251 to 253/Ind/2025 the corresponding previous year period is from 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2014. 2. FACTUAL MATRIX 2.1 That as and by way of an assessment order passedu/s

DCIT CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

250,106 It is also sen that trial interest received of this company are to the tune of Rs. 206,67 Lacs and TDS thereon is Rs. 20.67 Lacs From the tax audit report and the annual accounts of this company it is evident that the company is engaged in the business of trading of polished diamonds, rough diamonds, gold

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

250,106 It is also sen that trial interest received of this company are to the tune of Rs. 206,67 Lacs and TDS thereon is Rs. 20.67 Lacs From the tax audit report and the annual accounts of this company it is evident that the company is engaged in the business of trading of polished diamonds, rough diamonds, gold

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

250,106 It is also sen that trial interest received of this company are to the tune of Rs. 206,67 Lacs and TDS thereon is Rs. 20.67 Lacs From the tax audit report and the annual accounts of this company it is evident that the company is engaged in the business of trading of polished diamonds, rough diamonds, gold

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

URBAN ADMINISTRATION AMD DEVELOPMENT,BHOPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), BHOPAL

In the result, the impugned order is set aside as & by way of

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshidirectorate Of Urban Deputy बनाम/ Administrations & Development, Commissioner Of Vs. Nagar Palika Bhawan, 6 No.Bus Income Tax-Tds, Stop, R.S.Market, Bhopal S.O. Huzur, Bhopal(M.P.) (Tan: Bpldo1618B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sapan Usrethe, Adv. & Ms. Apoorva Garg, Ca Revenue By Shri Anup Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 21.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2026 आदेश / O R D E R

6 No.Bus Income Tax-TDS, Stop, R.S.Market, Bhopal S.O. Huzur, Bhopal(M.P.) (TAN: BPLDO1618B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Sapan Usrethe, Adv. & Ms. Apoorva Garg, CA Revenue by Shri Anup Singh, CIT DR Date of Hearing 21.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 30.01.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Paresh M Joshi, J.M.: This is an Appeal filed by the Assessee

M.P.RAJYA SAHAKARI BANK MARYADIT,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT/DCIT-TDS, BHYOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimp Rajya Sahakari Bank Adit/Acit, Tds Maryadit Bhopal 131/11 Apex Bank, Vs. Zone-Ii Mp Nagar Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Bplm03419D Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.09.2023

6. The above grounds are independent to each other.” 2. None has appeared on behalf of the assessee when this appeal was called for hearing. Since the impugned order is passed ex-parte and for non-prosecution therefore, the bench proposes to hear and disposed of this appeal ex-parte. 3. We have heard Ld. DR and carefully perused

STUTI CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD,NAGDA vs. ITO 2(2), UJJAIN

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

Bench: B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshistuti Construction Pvt. Ito 2(2), बनाम/ Ltd, Ujjain Vs. 53 Government Colony, Birla Gram, Nagda (Pan: Aahcs3932R) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By Shri Anil Kumar Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

section 250(6). Appellant hereby request to consider additional grounds of appeal evidences given during hearing and alteration, deletion, modification in grounds of appeal given here in above. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice to other grounds, the order passed by Hon. CI T (A)may please

M/S KAIPAN PANMASALA P LTD,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 2(3) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Kaipan Panmasala P. Ito -2(3) Ltd. Bhopal 10-A Sector-D Industrial Vs. Area Govindpura Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aadck 3766 H Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 08.05.2023

TDS without properly appreciating the facts of the case 5. At the time of hearing, Ld. AR has submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed impugned ex-parte order due to no reply or participation on behalf of the assessee. He has submitted that since the notices of hearing were issued by the ld. CIT(A) through registered

PRAVEEN AGRAWAL ,INDORE vs. DCIT 4(1) INDORE, INDORE

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

250 of the Act which\nis hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned order”. The relevant\n Assessment Year is 2018-19 and the corresponding previous year\nperiod is from 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2018.\nPraveen Agrawal\nITA No. 651/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2018-19\n2.\nFACTUAL MATRIX\n2.1 That the case of the assessee was selected by the Income\nTax Department for limited scrutiny assessment under

VAIBHAV MITTAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT/ACIT 4(1),IND, INDORE

Appeal is dismissed

6,33,310/-. Subsequently, appellant had filed a rectification\nrequest against this order dated 25/11/2019 as TDS credit of Rs. 1,44,565/-\nwas not allowed though reflecting in Form 26AS of A.Y. 2012-13.\nThereafter, the AO had passed rectification order dated 01/09/2021 while\ngiving credit of TDS as reflected in 26AS. However, no specific discussion\nwas made

UNION BANK OF INDIA RGPV - BHOPAL,BHOPAL vs. ACIT(TDS), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

6) Guard File\nSd/-\n(B.M. BIYANI)\nACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nBy order\nSr. Private Secretary\nIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal\nIndore Bench, Indore", "summary": { "facts": "The assessee, Union Bank of India, failed to deduct TDS on interest payments made to RGPV, Bhopal for financial years 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2017-18. The Assessing Officer passed orders under sections

UNION BANK OF INDIA RGPV - BHOPAL,BHOPAL vs. ACIT(TDS), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

6) Guard File\nBy order\nSr. Private Secretary\nIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal\nIndore Bench, Indore", "summary": { "facts": "The assessee, Union Bank of India, is appealing against orders related to TDS defaults for financial years 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2017-18. A TDS survey found that the assessee paid interest without deducting tax at source. The Assessing Officer passed orders