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

1-6-2015. 18. Further before parting, we may also refer to the order of CIT(A) in the case of Junagade Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., where the CIT(A) had dismissed appeals of assessee being delayed for period of December, 2013 and July, 2014. The CIT(A) while computing delay had taken the date of intimation under section 200A

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

Appeals are allowed\"

TDS\nstatements within the time specified in sub-section (3) of section\n200 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 and consequently, no late fee\nunder s.234E was leviable.\n5. That, the appellant further craves leave to add, alter and/or\namend any of the foregoing grounds of appeal as and when\nconsidered necessary\".\n3.\nRecord of Hearing\n3.1 The hearing

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

Appeals are allowed

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

Section 194J of the Act is not attracted in the case of "revenue sharing contract". According to Respondent No.1, in such contracts there is only sharing of revenue and, therefore, payments by revenue sharing cannot constitute "fees" under Section 194J of the Act. This submission is not accepted by the Department. We leave it there because this submission

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

Appeals are allowed

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

Section 194J of the Act is not attracted in the case of "revenue sharing contract". According to Respondent No.1, in such contracts there is only sharing of revenue and, therefore, payments by revenue sharing cannot constitute "fees" under Section 194J of the Act. This submission is not accepted by the Department. We leave it there because this submission

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

Appeals are allowed

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

Section 194J of the Act is not attracted in the case of "revenue sharing contract". According to Respondent No.1, in such contracts there is only sharing of revenue and, therefore, payments by revenue sharing cannot constitute "fees" under Section 194J of the Act. This submission is not accepted by the Department. We leave it there because this submission

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)

1)(vii) would also have to be construed as involving a human element • The expression 'technical service' would have reference to only technical service rendered by a human. Page 36 of 65 ITA No. 415/Ind/2014 & 265/Ind/2018 – AY 2010-11 M/s Vodafone Idea Ltd. (Formerly M/s Idea Cellular Ltd.) • MTNL or other companies do not provide any assistance to the assessee

IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. DCIT TDS, INDORE

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)

1)(vii) would also have to be construed as involving a human element • The expression 'technical service' would have reference to only technical service rendered by a human. Page 36 of 65 ITA No. 415/Ind/2014 & 265/Ind/2018 – AY 2010-11 M/s Vodafone Idea Ltd. (Formerly M/s Idea Cellular Ltd.) • MTNL or other companies do not provide any assistance to the assessee

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

In the result ground no.2 raised by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit(Central)-1 Surya Infraventures Pvt. Indore Ltd. Nanda Nagar, Indore बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Appellant) Pan: Aadca 4235 D Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Shri Bhavesh Agrawal, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 01.12.2022

section 41(1) is without any basis and addition made by Ld. AO is not sustainable. We approve the decision taken by Ld. CIT(A) which is very much sound on the basis of facts Page 7 of 16 M/s Surya Infraventure Pvt. Ltd. Assessment year 2013-14 and law. Accordingly, we find Ground No. 1 of revenue devoid

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

Appeals are allowed

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

41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023, dated 13.03.2024 wherein an identical issue has been decided. The relevant paras of order are reproduced below: Page 19 of 24 Shri Vimal Todi ITA Nos. 188 to 190/Ind/2024 - AY 2012-13 to 2014-15 “12. In so far as another legal ground raised by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) with regard to the limitation

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

Appeals are allowed

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

41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023, dated 13.03.2024 wherein an identical issue has been decided. The relevant paras of order are reproduced below: Page 19 of 24 Shri Vimal Todi ITA Nos. 188 to 190/Ind/2024 - AY 2012-13 to 2014-15 “12. In so far as another legal ground raised by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) with regard to the limitation

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

TDS 2,62,79,228 14-09-2007 1,40,00,000 15-12-2007 5,00,00,000 15-12-2007 1,30,00,000 15-03-2008 1,63,00,000 18-09-2008 40,00,000 25-09-2008 17,00,000 .. 1,23,37,620 Total 13,76,16,848 3.02 Your Honour, in the instant

PATIDAR BUILDER PVT LTD,BHOPAL vs. AO, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed partly

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2011-12 Patidar Builder Pvt. Ltd. Assessing Officer E-4/382 Arera Colony, (Jcit-Range-2, Bhopal) बनाम/ Bhopal Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaacp8931A Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah & Soumya Bumb, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.07.2025

section 41(1) is not sustainable and we delete the same. This ground is thus allowed. Ground No. 4: 17. In this ground, the assessee challenges the disallowance of Rs. 1,29,648/- made by AO and upheld by CIT(A) out of deduction of interest expenditure claimed by assessee u/s 36(1)(iii). 18. Ld. AR drew

BAL BHAVAN SCHOOL,BHOPAL vs. DCIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed as mentioned above

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2014-15 Bal Bhavan School, Dcit (Exemption), 1, Shyamla Hills, Bhopal बनाम/ Bhopal Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaaab3678G Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10.06.2024

41,72,105/- made towards computer expenses as diversion of income to the persons specified within the meaning of section 13(1)(c) and 13(2). (4) On the facts and circumstances of the case and applicable law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in denying the benefit of exemption claimed u/s 11 of Rs. 98,55,734/- by alleging that

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

section 41(1).” (c) Paper-Book Page 34-36 – The AO repeated same notice u/s 142(1) on 25.01.2017 requiring assessee to submit the very same details/ documents. (d) Paper-Book Page 37-39 – The assessee filed replies vide letter dated 01.02.2017: “3. Regarding filing of complete details with regard to Contract Receipts along with agreement and other documentary evidences

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

41 CCH 0283 Hyd Trib that names of donors along with their addresses were furnished before Investigation Wing of department and were also recorded in book produced by assessee before AO -Hence such donations cannot l:l. classified as "anonymous donations" as per section 115BBC(3)- only requirement u/s 115BBC(3) was that names and addresses of the donors

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

41 CCH 0283 Hyd Trib that names of donors along with their addresses were furnished before Investigation Wing of department and were also recorded in book produced by assessee before AO -Hence such donations cannot l:l. classified as "anonymous donations" as per section 115BBC(3)- only requirement u/s 115BBC(3) was that names and addresses of the donors

MAAN ALUMINIUM LTD.,PITHAMPUR vs. ITO (IT & TP), BHOPAL

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Maan Aluminium Ltd. Ito (It & Tp), 427, Orbit Mall, Bhopal बनाम/ 4Th Floor, Ab Road, Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aapcm 0088 C / Tan: Bplm 07361 E Assessee By Shri Sudhir Padliya, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.03.2023

TDS and having not deducted so, there was a failure on the part of assessee. Accordingly, Ld. AO treated the asssessee as defaulter in terms of section 201(1)/(1A) and created demand of tax and interest as per working made in Para No. 8 of his order. CIT(A)’s Order: 5. During first-appeal, Ld. CIT(A) made

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL vs. DILIP BUILDCON LIMITED, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

TDS certificate tax at source was deducted u/s. 194C being applicable to a contractor cannot be the reason for treating a genuine developer as a contractor. The same cannot detract the assessee from the position of being a developer; nor should it debar the assessee from claiming deduction under section 80- IA(4). Therefore, the assessee, who is only engaged