M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., UNIT SATNA CEMENT WORKS,SATNA vs. ITO (IT & TP), BHOPAL

In the result, Assessee’s appeals

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

TDS under section 195. 13. We notice that to give effect to the order of this Tribunal dated 24.12.2014 proceedings were initiated by ITO (IT&TP), Bhopal in the case of the appellant. As per para 58 of the ITAT's order, it was held by the ITAT that the scope of Section 5(2

M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., UNIT SATNA CEMENT WORKS,SATNA vs. ITO (IT & TP), BHOPAL

In the result, Assessee’s appeals

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

TDS under section 195. 13. We notice that to give effect to the order of this Tribunal dated 24.12.2014 proceedings were initiated by ITO (IT&TP), Bhopal in the case of the appellant. As per para 58 of the ITAT's order, it was held by the ITAT that the scope of Section 5(2

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

Appeals are allowed

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

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 of the appellate authority was received

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

Appeals are allowed

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

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 of the appellate authority was received

SHRI ANIL KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. THE ITO-5(3), INDORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2009-10

TDS. 2. The Learned CIT Appeals-II and the AO has failed to appreciate and or over looked. (i) That the payments made to the transporters are not in respect of a transport contract for carriage of goods. (ii) That the payment made are in respect of hire of transport” 3. Brief facts of the case limited to the issue

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 @ 2% u/s 194DA of Income Tax Act. After verifying the claim of the assessee through various documentary evidences produced by the assesse and computation of income, replies dated 15.06.2017, 09.10.2017, 23.10.2017 and 17.11.2017 and various judicial pronouncements Ld. AO formed the opinion that the said claim of the assessee is bonafide. Thus, looking to the facts of the case

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 @ 2% u/s 194DA of Income Tax Act. After verifying the claim of the assessee through various documentary evidences produced by the assesse and computation of income, replies dated 15.06.2017, 09.10.2017, 23.10.2017 and 17.11.2017 and various judicial pronouncements Ld. AO formed the opinion that the said claim of the assessee is bonafide. Thus, looking to the facts of the case

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

253/- shown in the audited financial statement and has also not disputed that the assessee society is carrying out charitable activity by way of giving medical relief to poor and also imparting education through Index Medical College and the assessee is regularly carrying out Mayank Welfare society ITANos.232 & 776/Ind/2018/17 the activities for which it was granted registration u/s 12AA

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

253/- shown in the audited financial statement and has also not disputed that the assessee society is carrying out charitable activity by way of giving medical relief to poor and also imparting education through Index Medical College and the assessee is regularly carrying out Mayank Welfare society ITANos.232 & 776/Ind/2018/17 the activities for which it was granted registration u/s 12AA

M/S. ABHINAV ENTERPRISES,INDORE vs. PCIT-2, INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Abhinav Enterprises, Pr. Commissioner Of 85, Income-Tax-2, Ramchandra Nagar Extn., Indore. बनाम/ Aerodrum Road, Vs. Indore. (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan : Aanfa6300Q Assessee By Shri S.S.Deshpande, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 11.03.2024

253(5) or decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the situation, we are inclined to accept the present appeal as having been filed in time and we accept so. Accordingly, this appeal is admitted and proceeded for hearing. 7. The brief facts of the case are such that the assessee filed return of income of relevant

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

TDS(2), Vs. Lakhanmal Colony, Bhopal Near Circuit House, Vidisha (TAN:BPLD02938F) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Assessee by ShriSourabhRathi, AR Revenue by ShriAshishPorwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 20.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 28.11.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the assessee Under Section 253

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

TDS(2), Vs. Lakhanmal Colony, Bhopal Near Circuit House, Vidisha (TAN:BPLD02938F) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Assessee by ShriSourabhRathi, AR Revenue by ShriAshishPorwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 20.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 28.11.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the assessee Under Section 253

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

TDS(2), Vs. Lakhanmal Colony, Bhopal Near Circuit House, Vidisha (TAN:BPLD02938F) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Assessee by ShriSourabhRathi, AR Revenue by ShriAshishPorwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 20.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 28.11.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the assessee Under Section 253

M/S ANDRITZ HYDRO PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS V A TECH HYDRO INDAI PVT. LTD.),MANDIDEEP vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

section 9(1)(vi) and section 9(1)(vii)of the Act as well as under India- Austria Tax Treaty on which TDS was not made hence, the AO has rightly disallowed the same under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6.5. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the material available

THE DCIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PVT. LTD., RAISEN

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

section 9(1)(vi) and section 9(1)(vii)of the Act as well as under India- Austria Tax Treaty on which TDS was not made hence, the AO has rightly disallowed the same under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6.5. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the material available

THE ACIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PVT. LTD., RAISEN

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

section 9(1)(vi) and section 9(1)(vii)of the Act as well as under India- Austria Tax Treaty on which TDS was not made hence, the AO has rightly disallowed the same under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6.5. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the material available

M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS VA TECH HYDRO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

section 9(1)(vi) and section 9(1)(vii)of the Act as well as under India- Austria Tax Treaty on which TDS was not made hence, the AO has rightly disallowed the same under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6.5. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the material available

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

In the result common ground no

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

2. He failed to appreciate and ought to have held that: a)The Appellant had acted under a honest and bona-fide belief that tax was not deductible under section 194H of the Act on 'discount allowed to the prepaid distributors' . b)Without prejudice, in absence of payment or credit, the Appellant not being a person responsible for paying income