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) and 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 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) and 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

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshishri Vimal Todi, Additional Commissioner बनाम/ 501, Darshan Residency, Of Income-Tax, Vs. 104-105, Anand Bazar, Indore Indore

5. After considering the reply, the ACIT, on 26 th February, 2013, passed the two penalty orders in which the plea of limitation was negated. It was noted that initiation of penalty proceedings was not linked to any pending assessment proceedings. The Assessee then went in appeal before the CIT(A). Two separate orders dated 10th September, 2013 were passed

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

Appeals are allowed

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

1) and 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

1) and 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

1) and 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

TDS in Form No. 24Q. Admittedly, the Statements relate to Quarter-2 and Quarter-3 of Financial Year 2012-13 and the assessee is claiming that prior to 01.06.2015, there was no power/procedure in Income-tax Act, 1961 for creating demand of late fee against assessee and it is only after insertion of clause (c) in sub-section (1

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 in Form No. 24Q. Admittedly, the Statements relate to Quarter-2 and Quarter-3 of Financial Year 2012-13 and the assessee is claiming that prior to 01.06.2015, there was no power/procedure in Income-tax Act, 1961 for creating demand of late fee against assessee and it is only after insertion of clause (c) in sub-section (1

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

SUCH MEDIA PUBLICATION P LTD ,CIT (A) NFAC DELHI vs. NFAC DELHI, DELHI

In the result, this appeal is dismissed

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

5. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal in a nutshell are that the appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') filed returns of income for the assessment year 2019-2020 on 22.11.2019. In the returns, the assessee disclosed the income as NIL after claiming set off and brought forward the loss of Rs.16,60,58,649/-. Notice under

M/S DAULATARAM ENGINEERING SERVICES P.LTD,MANDIDEEP vs. THE ADIT/CPC , BANGALORE

In the result, this appeal is dismissed

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

5. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal in a nutshell are that the appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') filed returns of income for the assessment year 2019-2020 on 22.11.2019. In the returns, the assessee disclosed the income as NIL after claiming set off and brought forward the loss of Rs.16,60,58,649/-. Notice under

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

5. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal in a nutshell are that the appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') filed returns of income for the assessment year 2019-2020 on 22.11.2019. In the returns, the assessee disclosed the income as NIL after claiming set off and brought forward the loss of Rs.16,60,58,649/-. Notice under

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 (2) and also the assessment year for which such credit may be given." 7. The revenue relies on the phrase "shall be treated as a payment of tax on behalf of the person from whose income the deduction was made" to contend that the assessee's TDS claim cannot be based on the receipts of M/s REPL. However

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 (2) and also the assessment year for which such credit may be given." 7. The revenue relies on the phrase "shall be treated as a payment of tax on behalf of the person from whose income the deduction was made" to contend that the assessee's TDS claim cannot be based on the receipts of M/s REPL. However

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

Appeals are allowed

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

5. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. Since the assessee has raised a legal issue regarding validity of the order passed under section 271D as barred by limitation, therefore, we first take up the issue of limitation. The Additional CIT has initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271D by issuing the show

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

Appeals are allowed

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

5. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. Since the assessee has raised a legal issue regarding validity of the order passed under section 271D as barred by limitation, therefore, we first take up the issue of limitation. The Additional CIT has initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271D by issuing the show

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 27-09-2008 1,23,37,620 Total 13,76,16,848 11. That

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