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." In view of above, SLP in the case of CIT (TDS), Bangalore v. Vodafone South Ltd. (2016) was not filed. This is for your kind information and the needful.' 5

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." In view of above, SLP in the case of CIT (TDS), Bangalore v. Vodafone South Ltd. (2016) was not filed. This is for your kind information and the needful.' 5

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." In view of above, SLP in the case of CIT (TDS), Bangalore v. Vodafone South Ltd. (2016) was not filed. This is for your kind information and the needful.' 5

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

section 234E. Page 5 of 23 M/s. Supreme Transport Company ITA No. 914 & 917/Ind/2024 – AY 2013-14 Financial Year 2012-13 / Q2 – 24Q & Q3-24Q] 7. We find that the ITAT, Delhi Bench has passed a detailed order dealing identical issue in Franchise India Brands Ltd. Vs. CPC-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

section 234E. Page 5 of 23 M/s. Supreme Transport Company ITA No. 914 & 917/Ind/2024 – AY 2013-14 Financial Year 2012-13 / Q2 – 24Q & Q3-24Q] 7. We find that the ITAT, Delhi Bench has passed a detailed order dealing identical issue in Franchise India Brands Ltd. Vs. CPC-TDS

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

Appeals are allowed\"

TDS, because the\npayments made to each seller was less than the prescribed limit\nof Rs.50 lacs and therefore, provision of section 194IA was not\napplicable. The demand has been raised by the department u/s\n200 in terms of failure to comply with Section 200A, which\ndeals with the processing of statement of tax deducted at source\nu/s 200. First

PERMALI WALLACE PVT. LTD,BHOPAL vs. ITO (IT & TP), BHOPAL

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

5-6 of the order of AO and submitted that the AO has invoked section 195 read with section 9(1)(i). Then, he carried us to the provision of section 195 to show that the requirement of TDS

PERMALI WALLACE PVT. LTD,BHOPAL vs. ITO (IT & TP), BHOPAL

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

5-6 of the order of AO and submitted that the AO has invoked section 195 read with section 9(1)(i). Then, he carried us to the provision of section 195 to show that the requirement of TDS

PERMALI WALLACE PVT. LTD,BHOPAL vs. ITO (IT & TP), BHOPAL

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

5-6 of the order of AO and submitted that the AO has invoked section 195 read with section 9(1)(i). Then, he carried us to the provision of section 195 to show that the requirement of TDS

D.K CONSTRUCTION,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 2 (3), BHOPAL

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanid. K Construction Ito 2(3) E 2/21, Pandit Deeendayal Bhopal Complex, Arera Colony, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaafd7121P Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit- Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 04.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09 .09.2024

TDS.” 2. At the time of hearing Ld. AR of the assesse has stated at bar that due to smallness of disallowance the assessee does not press ground no.2 of the grounds of appeal and the same may be dismissed as not pressed. Ld. DR has raised no objection if ground no.2 of the assesse’s appeal is dismissed

JHABUA DHAR KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK,INDORE vs. DCIT/ACIT, RATLAM, RATLAM

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2008-09 Jhabua Dhar Kshetriya Acit/Dcit, Gramin Bank, Ratlam 204, C-21, Business Park, बनाम/ Opp. Hotel Radisson Blu, Mr-10, Vs. Indore

section 143(3) on 20.08.2015 by AO after making some newer disallowances/additions against which the assessee filed a separate appeal No. U-216/2015-16 to the same CIT(A), Ujjain and the said appeal came to be decided vide a separate order of even date 03.11.2016, copy of order is placed at Page No. 72-79 of Paper-Book

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

5. That the Learned Assessing Officer also erred in failing to recognize that the payment made to SHGs pertain to the sale of goods and therefore exempt from TDS under section

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

5. That the Learned Assessing Officer also erred in failing to recognize that the payment made to SHGs pertain to the sale of goods and therefore exempt from TDS under section

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

5. That the Learned Assessing Officer also erred in failing to recognize that the payment made to SHGs pertain to the sale of goods and therefore exempt from TDS under section

SAHARAYN UNIVERSAL MULTIPURPOSE SOCIETY LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

section 40(a)(ia) - 30% of the expenses on which TDS\nwas not deducted\n(i) Rent & Utility charges\n1,29,43,872\n(ii) Salary Expenses\n85,34,595\n(iii) Co-operative Educator Expenses\n193,28,93,248\n(iv) Payment to Contractors\n1,86,718\n(v) Professional Charges\n15,79,826\nAssessed income

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

section 5, no income accrues or arises or deemed to accrue or arise in India on the payments made in UFS by branch there. Therefore, the payments made abroad cannot be considered as income chargeable under the provisions of the Act.” Hence, in light of the above, the appellant is not liable to deduct TDS

MAHATMA GANDHI STATE INSTITUTE OF RURAL DEVELOPEMENT,ADHARTAL vs. ACIT TDS, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

5)\n(6)\n\nThe appellant\nThe respondent\nCIT\nCIT(A)\nDepartmental Representative\nGuard File\n\nBy order\nSenior Private Secretary\nIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal\nIndore Bench, Indore", "summary": { "facts": "The assessee filed an appeal after a delay of 151 days due to unavoidable circumstances. The case concerns the incorrect application of Section 194J instead of Section 194C for TDS

NARENDRA KUMAR MISHRA,BHOPAL vs. ITO-3(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

5,00,000 on account\nof voluntary retirement. But BSNL authorities refused to allow the rebate under Section 89 of\nthe IT Act and recovered TDS