SHRI JAGDISH KUMAR GULIA,BHOPAL vs. THRE ASSTT.DIRECTORE OF INCOME TAX ,CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed

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

TDS of Rs.72,87,370/- was allowed and the refund was determined at Rs.11,61,797/-. 7. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as 'CIT(A)'). The CIT(A), by order dated 18.12.2023, dismissed the appeal. The assessee thereupon approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by the impugned order dated

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 43B shall not apply. According to the Ld. DR, the impact would be such that if the employees’ contributions are paid after the due dates under the PF / ESI laws, disallowance would happen. The Ld. DR further submitted that the words “… shall be deemed never to have been applied …” appearing in these newly inserted Explanations clearly demonstrate that

THE DCIT, 1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. BAJRANG AGRO INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result, Appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2008-09 Bajrang Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd. Dcit-5(1) Vikram Tower, 1St Floor, Sapna- Indore बनाम/ Sangeeta Road, Vs. Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aabcb3958N Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dcit-1(1) Bajrang Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd. Indore Vikram Tower, 1St Floor, Sapna- बनाम/ Sangeeta Road, Vs. Indore (Revenue) (Respondent) P.A. No. Aabcb3958N

Section 43B for that period particularly in view of the fact that he has contributed to the provident fund before filing the return." 31. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vinay Cement's case (supra), upholding the decision of Gauhati High Court in George Williamson (Assam) Ltd.'s case (supra), as concluded by the Madras High Court

M/S BAJRANG AGRO INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, Appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2008-09 Bajrang Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd. Dcit-5(1) Vikram Tower, 1St Floor, Sapna- Indore बनाम/ Sangeeta Road, Vs. Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aabcb3958N Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dcit-1(1) Bajrang Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd. Indore Vikram Tower, 1St Floor, Sapna- बनाम/ Sangeeta Road, Vs. Indore (Revenue) (Respondent) P.A. No. Aabcb3958N

Section 43B for that period particularly in view of the fact that he has contributed to the provident fund before filing the return." 31. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vinay Cement's case (supra), upholding the decision of Gauhati High Court in George Williamson (Assam) Ltd.'s case (supra), as concluded by the Madras High Court

HONOURABLE PACKAGING P LTD ,DHAR vs. THE DCIT 1(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of The Income Tax Return & Can It Be Disallowed In The 143(1).

tds (Tax 1422 1422 Double taxation Deducted at source) and tcs (Tax Collected at Source) 3 I.TA No. 348/IND/2022 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No Honourable packaging P. Ltd. vs. DCIT Interest on 120 Nil Payment related delay payment of to indirect tax. taxes Delay 892 Nil Normal payment charges Business Expenditures 2.3. The CPC not considered the above facts

ACIT 2 (1), INDORE vs. M/S JILA INDUSTRIES LTD, DHAR

In the result this appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R.Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyanivirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2010-11 Acit-2(1), Indore M/S. Jiji Industries Ltd., (Formerly Known As बनाम/ Krishna Profiles Pvt. Ltd.), Vs. Plot No.316, Sejwaya, Billod, Dhar (Mp) (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A.N. - Aacck 1383 M Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ca Date Of Hearing: 02.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.02.2022

43B of the IT Act. In the absence of the assessee’s substantiating the genuiness of the claim of commission payment of Rs. 1,71,32,125/-, the claim is not allowed and hence it is added back to the total income of the assessee.” 5.3 The Ld. CIT(A) has, however, deleted the disallowance vide Para

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI SANJAY SHUKLA, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2013-14 Shri Sanjay Shukla, Acit Central Circle 2, बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Ahqps8882D Assessment Year:2013-14 Acit Central Circle 2, Shri Sanjay Shukla, बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Ahqps8882D Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah, Ca Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.03..2022 आदेश / O R D E R

TDS claimed by Lender Company. l) Statement recorded of Shri Mohan Jhawar (Director) during assessment proceedings of Shri Sanjay Shukla (Appellant) where he had confirmed the transaction, explained the source of loan advanced, furnished the details of projects completed. m) Submission of Documents and reply by KCL Infra Project Ltd in the case of the appellant. n) Articles of Association

SHRI SANJAY SHUKLA ,INDORE vs. ACIT,CENTRAL-CIRLE-2, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2013-14 Shri Sanjay Shukla, Acit Central Circle 2, बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Ahqps8882D Assessment Year:2013-14 Acit Central Circle 2, Shri Sanjay Shukla, बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Ahqps8882D Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah, Ca Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.03..2022 आदेश / O R D E R

TDS claimed by Lender Company. l) Statement recorded of Shri Mohan Jhawar (Director) during assessment proceedings of Shri Sanjay Shukla (Appellant) where he had confirmed the transaction, explained the source of loan advanced, furnished the details of projects completed. m) Submission of Documents and reply by KCL Infra Project Ltd in the case of the appellant. n) Articles of Association

M/S RAJENDRA AGRI PRODUCTS P LTD,INDORE vs. DCIT (TDS) , BANGALURU

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanirajendra Agri Product P. Dcit Ltd. Cpc Banglore Vs. 302, Royal House,11/13 Usha Ganj Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcr 3053 L Assessee By Ms. Shreya Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.04.2023

section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, whereas the assessee has deducted as well as deposited the TDS amounting

MADHYA PRADESH COUNSALTANCY ORGANISATION LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S M.P. Consultancy Acit-2(1) बनाम/ Organization Ltd., Bhopal Vs. Block -2, 3Rd Floor Paryawas Bhawan, Arera Hills Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aabcm0090J Appellant By Shri M.K. Sharma, Ca Revenue By Smt. Vineeta Dube, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.08.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 .09.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: This Appeal At The Instance Of Assessee Pertaining To A.Y. 2013-14 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-I, Bhopal, (In Short ‘Cit(A)’), Dated 30.03.2017 Which Is Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961(Hereinafter Called As The ‘Act’) Framed On 23.-2.2016 By Acit- 2(1), Bhopal.

43B or under section 36(1)(va), whether, it was employees or employer contribution.” SLP filed by the Income Tax Department was dismissed. 10. We, therefore, respectfully following the above judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, are of the considered view since the alleged payment has been paid before the due date of filing return of income. Providing

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

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 40(a)(ia), the amount from which tax is bound to be deducted and not deducted from payment

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

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 40(a)(ia), the amount from which tax is bound to be deducted and not deducted from payment

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

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 40(a)(ia), the amount from which tax is bound to be deducted and not deducted from payment

ABHAY KUMAR JAIN,RAISEN vs. PR CIT -2 , BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of Assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Abhay Kumar Jain, Pr. Cit-2 Old Bus Stand, Begumganj बनाम/ Bhopal Raisen Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Afqpj 0679 F Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal, Ar Revenue By None Date Of Hearing 25.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2022

section 43B at the time of regular assessment which was not done. 3. Assessment in the said case, u/s 143(3) dated 25.04.2017, was finalized without considering the above mentioned facts. This omission on part of the AO, renders the order erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interests of revenue. Therefore, I propose to invoke power vested

THE ACIT 1(1), UJJAIN vs. M/S PARAG FANS & COOLING SYSTEMS LTD., DEWAS

In the result appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

43B- HELD-In view of CIT v Alom Extrusions Ltd. (2010) 14 ITJ 133(SC), deletion of second proviso is retrospective-Therefore, even if employees contribution is deposited before due date of filing of return, same is allowable. Therefore, the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs.4,17,302/- is deleted. Therefore, the appeal on this ground is Allowed

THE ACIT 1(1), UJJAIN vs. M/S PARAG FANS & COOLING SYSTEMS LTD., DEWAS

In the result appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

43B- HELD-In view of CIT v Alom Extrusions Ltd. (2010) 14 ITJ 133(SC), deletion of second proviso is retrospective-Therefore, even if employees contribution is deposited before due date of filing of return, same is allowable. Therefore, the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs.4,17,302/- is deleted. Therefore, the appeal on this ground is Allowed

SHRI JANKILAL,UJJAIN vs. PCIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jankilal Pr.Cit-1 बनाम/ 12, Chimanganj Mandi Indore Agar Road, Ujjain Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aczpj 2632 A Assessee By Shri Manoj Fadnis, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 08.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.04.2023

TDS has not been made on Security Services payment amounting to Rs. 1,14,433/- made to Sagar Security Services. In submission dated 12th November, 2019, the assessee has stated that as the payee has duly considered this income in return and has paid due taxes thereon, you are not an assessee in default

M/S. NUTECH CONSTRUCTION,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2010-11

TDS on sum of Rs.1,26,19,795/- and disallowance of deduction u/s 43B for payment of service tax and provident fund totaling at Rs.5,33,602/- 4. The assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) but could not succeed as both the additions were confirmed. 5. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal