THE ADDL. CIT RANGE -1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 194C(6) of the Act are fulfilled, the appellant was not required to deducted TDS in respect of such payments and once there is no requirement to deduct TDS, disallowance u/s 40

RAMESH ANAND,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-4(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Ramesh Anand Ito, 4(1), C/O G.J. Shah & Co., 416, बनाम/ Manas Bhawan Main, 11, Indore Vs. Rnt Marg, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aeapa1661F Appellant By Shri Pankaj Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri K.C. Selvamni Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.11.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: This Appeal Of Assessee Pertaining To A.Y. 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-Ii, Indore, (In Short ‘Cit(A)’), Dated 16.11.2017 Which Is Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961(Hereinafter Called As The ‘Act’) Framed On Ramesh Anand

section 40(a) was inserted by finance (No.2) Actm 2004- Hela Yeas [para9] [in favour of assessee] The ratio of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT, 211 CTR 545 (S.C.) held that when the assess is in default for TDS

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

40(a)(ia) of the IT Act 1961 on account of non deduction of 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

M/S PATIDAR HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE,UJJAIN vs. THE ITO 2(1), UJJAIN

In the result, ITA No.1007/Ind/2016 is partly allowed, is allowed and ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

40(a)(ia) FACTS 1. The appellant- firm has made the following payments without deducting TDS on following:- Gro Particulars Amount und No. (Rs.) 5 For security Charges 1,52,588 6 For AMC Charges 55,000 7 For Medical and Surgical 1,42,361 expenses Total 3,49,949 2. As per the provisions of Section

M/S. PATIDAR HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE,UJJAIN vs. THE ITO 2(1), UJJAIN

In the result, ITA No.1007/Ind/2016 is partly allowed, is allowed and ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

40(a)(ia) FACTS 1. The appellant- firm has made the following payments without deducting TDS on following:- Gro Particulars Amount und No. (Rs.) 5 For security Charges 1,52,588 6 For AMC Charges 55,000 7 For Medical and Surgical 1,42,361 expenses Total 3,49,949 2. As per the provisions of Section

M/S. PATIDAR HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE,UJJAIN vs. THE ITO 2(1), UJJAIN

In the result, ITA No.1007/Ind/2016 is partly allowed, is allowed and ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

40(a)(ia) FACTS 1. The appellant- firm has made the following payments without deducting TDS on following:- Gro Particulars Amount und No. (Rs.) 5 For security Charges 1,52,588 6 For AMC Charges 55,000 7 For Medical and Surgical 1,42,361 expenses Total 3,49,949 2. As per the provisions of Section

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

TDS was not made in respect of this expenditure under section 195 of the Act, he disallowed the expenses claim under section 40

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

TDS was not made in respect of this expenditure under section 195 of the Act, he disallowed the expenses claim under section 40

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

TDS was not made in respect of this expenditure under section 195 of the Act, he disallowed the expenses claim under section 40

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

TDS was not made in respect of this expenditure under section 195 of the Act, he disallowed the expenses claim under section 40

ITO 2(5), INDORE vs. M/S I PARADISE INFOMEDIA P LTD., INDORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

TDS and the provision of Section 40(a)(i) of the Act is not applicable at all. However, the plea

THE ACIT, 4(1), INDORE vs. SHRI SANJAY LUNAWAT, INDORE

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2010-11

TDS on the amount of late payment charges. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer disallowed an amount of Rs. 18,99,796/- under section 40

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act since the assessee did not make payment in cash to a single person on a single day in excess of Rs.20,000/- and that the assessee did not deduct TDS

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act since the assessee did not make payment in cash to a single person on a single day in excess of Rs.20,000/- and that the assessee did not deduct TDS

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act since the assessee did not make payment in cash to a single person on a single day in excess of Rs.20,000/- and that the assessee did not deduct TDS

THE ITO-1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S FRIENDS ASSOCIATES, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniito-1(1) M/S Friends Associates Bhopal Shop No.32, G.T.B. Complex New Market, Vs. Bhopal

TDS while passing the order u/s 154 dated 14.02.2022. The Ld. CIT(A) has not disturbed the quantum of expenses which were considered by the AO for making disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia). However since there was an amendment in the provisions of section

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)

40(a)(ia) of Income-tax Act, 1961, for non-deduction of TDS on freight expenses by assessee, ignoring that :- a) The assessee was liable to deduct 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

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)

40(a)(ia) of Income-tax Act, 1961, for non-deduction of TDS on freight expenses by assessee, ignoring that :- a) The assessee was liable to deduct 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