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

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

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

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 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

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

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

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/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

6. Apropos to first common issue relating to rate of deduction of tax as to whether the assessee has rightly deducted the tax at source u/s 194C of the Act or whether the Ld. AO was justified in applying the rate of 10% provided u/s 194J of the Act for payment of Professional & Technical Services. 7. Briefly stated facts

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

6. Apropos to first common issue relating to rate of deduction of tax as to whether the assessee has rightly deducted the tax at source u/s 194C of the Act or whether the Ld. AO was justified in applying the rate of 10% provided u/s 194J of the Act for payment of Professional & Technical Services. 7. Briefly stated facts

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

6. Apropos to first common issue relating to rate of deduction of tax as to whether the assessee has rightly deducted the tax at source u/s 194C of the Act or whether the Ld. AO was justified in applying the rate of 10% provided u/s 194J of the Act for payment of Professional & Technical Services. 7. Briefly stated facts

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

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA BARWANI M P,BARWANI vs. DCIT CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2014-15

250 of the Act which is Page 1 of 9 Kendriya Vidalaya Barwani A.Y. 2014-15 hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”. The relevant Assessment Year is 2014-15 and the corresponding previous year period is from 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2014. 2. FACTUAL MATRIX 2.1 That as per the data available in ITBA, the First appeal in terms of section

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