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

Appeals are allowed

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

Section 275(1)(c) of the Act. 7. Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the Revenue has sought to place reliance on the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS

SUPREME TRANSPORT COMPANY,INDORE vs. ITO TDS-II, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

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

TDS return/statement before 1-6-2015 i.e. insertion of caluse (c) to section 200A have also been examined by various High Courts and have upheld the chargeability of fee u/s 234E and the assessee's appeal have been dismissed. In particular, the decisions of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, Madras High Court & Rajasthan High Court may kindly be referred

SUPREME TRANSPORT COMPANY,INDORE vs. ITO TDS-II, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

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

TDS return/statement before 1-6-2015 i.e. insertion of caluse (c) to section 200A have also been examined by various High Courts and have upheld the chargeability of fee u/s 234E and the assessee's appeal have been dismissed. In particular, the decisions of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, Madras High Court & Rajasthan High Court may kindly be referred

M/S. BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE CIT- (TDS), BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed

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

TDS) (JCIT), Indore wherein Page 1 of 12 ITA No.407 to 410/Ind/2018 Bharti Airtel Ltd.. Page 2 of 12 penalty under section 271C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was levied on the appellant. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the levy of penalty under section 271C for non-deduction

M/S BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED,INDORE vs. JCIT TDS, INDORE

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed

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

TDS) (JCIT), Indore wherein Page 1 of 12 ITA No.407 to 410/Ind/2018 Bharti Airtel Ltd.. Page 2 of 12 penalty under section 271C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was levied on the appellant. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the levy of penalty under section 271C for non-deduction

M/S BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED,INDORE vs. JCIT TDS, INDORE

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed

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

TDS) (JCIT), Indore wherein Page 1 of 12 ITA No.407 to 410/Ind/2018 Bharti Airtel Ltd.. Page 2 of 12 penalty under section 271C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was levied on the appellant. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the levy of penalty under section 271C for non-deduction

M/S BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED,INDORE vs. JCIT TDS, INDORE

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed

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

TDS) (JCIT), Indore wherein Page 1 of 12 ITA No.407 to 410/Ind/2018 Bharti Airtel Ltd.. Page 2 of 12 penalty under section 271C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was levied on the appellant. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the levy of penalty under section 271C for non-deduction

SHRI SURENDRA SINGH BHATIA,INDORE vs. THE JCIT-3, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

275 shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation. —For the purposes of this section, — (a) "undisclosed income" means— (i) any income of the specified previous year represented, either wholly or partly, by any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or any entry in the books

MILLION TRADERS BHOPAL P LTD,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT,CPC,BENGALURU, BENGALURU

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

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

section 234B and 234C is unlawful and without jurisdiction therefore, the same be kindly deleted.” 2. The solitary grievance of the assessee for both the assessment year 2017-18 & 2018-19 is regarding non allowance of the credit of TCS collected by the Excise Department of State of M.P. in respect of the purchase of liquor due to nonappearance

MILLION TRADERS BHOPAL P LTD,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT,CPC,BENGALURU, BENGALURU

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

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

section 234B and 234C is unlawful and without jurisdiction therefore, the same be kindly deleted.” 2. The solitary grievance of the assessee for both the assessment year 2017-18 & 2018-19 is regarding non allowance of the credit of TCS collected by the Excise Department of State of M.P. in respect of the purchase of liquor due to nonappearance

M/S. ALANKAR JEWELLWER,VIDISHA vs. THE ACIT- II, VIDISHA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessees in

Bench: Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2016-17 M/S. Alankar Jewellers Acit-Ii Nikasha Road, Vidisha Bhopal बनाम/ Vidisha Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aavfa1527D It(Ss)A No.205/Ind/2019 Assessment Year:2016-17 Acit-Ii M/S. Alankar Jewellers Bhopal Nikasha Road, Vidisha बनाम/ Vidisha Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aavfa1527D Appellant By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Respondent By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.09.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad:

275 6 Om Construction 50 750 7 Sainath Infrastructure 25 25 P. Ltd. Total 1100 8 Ultimate Builders 225 225 9 Virasha Infrastructure 225 225 450 10 M/s Sainath 110 110 Colonizers P. Ltd. 11 Shri Anil Kered 40 40 Khilwani Alankar Jewellers ITANo.838/Ind/2019& IT(SS)No.205/Ind/2019 Total 150 30. From the above we find that in the case

JAI BAJRANG CONTRACTOR,NAGDA vs. ITO-WARD 2(2), UJJAIN

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

275/-. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal but the first-appeal has been decided against assessee for non-representation. Now, the assessee has come in next appeal before us.\n3.\nHaving heard learned Representatives of both sides and on perusal of orders of lower-authorities, we find that the CIT(A) has passed impugned order ex-parte