ADIM JATI SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI MYDT JOBAT,ALIRAJPUR vs. FACELESS ASSESSMENT OFFICER, ALIRAJPUR

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiadim Jati Sewa Sahkari Samiti National Faceless बनाम/ Mydt., Assessment Centre Vs. 01, Jobat, Jobat, Delhi Alirajpur (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaala0577E Assessee By Shri P.D. Nagar, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr

TDS from the interest other than interest on securities. Therefore it cannot be said that cooperative banks are excluded from the definition of cooperative societies by such an amendment. 30. Moreover, as reliance placed on the aforesaid decision for applicability of section 80P(4) of the Act in the facts of the case is also not possible to accept

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

5 - case a search has been initiated, would not apply. In other words, I am eligible for the immunity from imposition of the penalty, under the specific provision i.e. sub- section (2) of section 271AAA of the Act. In such circumstances, the penalty proceedings so initiated by your good self under s. 271AAA deserves to be dropped." The reply

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. Learned counsel for the respondent emphasises that JDIT(OSD)(L&R) functions under the Directorate, L&R, CBDT. Therefore, he contends that the decision

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. Learned counsel for the respondent emphasises that JDIT(OSD)(L&R) functions under the Directorate, L&R, CBDT. Therefore, he contends that the decision

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. Learned counsel for the respondent emphasises that JDIT(OSD)(L&R) functions under the Directorate, L&R, CBDT. Therefore, he contends that the decision

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)

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. Learned counsel for the respondent emphasises that JDIT(OSD)(L&R) functions under the Directorate, L&R, CBDT. Therefore, he contends that the decision

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)

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. Learned counsel for the respondent emphasises that JDIT(OSD)(L&R) functions under the Directorate, L&R, CBDT. Therefore, he contends that the decision

CMM KETI JV,INDORE vs. ITO 1(3), INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Cmm Keti Jv, Income-Tax Officer, 108, Shalimar Corporate 1(3), Center, Indore. बनाम/ 8-B, South Tukoganj, Vs. Indore. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aakfc7524K Assessee By Shri Shashank Sharma, Ca & Shri Prakash Gupta, Ca Revenue By Shri Sanjeev H. Bhagat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.01.2025

section 40A(2)(b). 3. The Hon’ble Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in adding flat rate of 2% of turnover on ad-hoc basis solely on assumption and presumption which is baseless and not justifiable.” 7. In Ground No. 2 & 3, the assessee has precisely challenged the addition of Rs. 1,03,58,079/- made

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 94; (b) the income of a deductee being an association of persons or a trust is assessable in the hands of members of the association of persons, or in the hands of trustees, as the case may be, (c) the income from an asset held in the name of a deductee, being a partner of a firm

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 94; (b) the income of a deductee being an association of persons or a trust is assessable in the hands of members of the association of persons, or in the hands of trustees, as the case may be, (c) the income from an asset held in the name of a deductee, being a partner of a firm

DCIT CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

5. According to the Ld. AO, such excess interest to the persons covered under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act was not available in terms of the provisions of the said Section and thus restricted the rate of interest of 12%. The balance interest of Rs.14,50,421/- was disallowed under Section 40A(2) of the Act and added

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

5. According to the Ld. AO, such excess interest to the persons covered under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act was not available in terms of the provisions of the said Section and thus restricted the rate of interest of 12%. The balance interest of Rs.14,50,421/- was disallowed under Section 40A(2) of the Act and added

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

5. According to the Ld. AO, such excess interest to the persons covered under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act was not available in terms of the provisions of the said Section and thus restricted the rate of interest of 12%. The balance interest of Rs.14,50,421/- was disallowed under Section 40A(2) of the Act and added

SHRI KHALID AMAN,BHOPAL vs. THE PCIT-2, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Bench: Ms.Suchitra Kamble & Shrib.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Khalid Aman, Pr. Cit-2 Bhopal Bhopal बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aarpa 4443 L Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 17.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 10.01.2023

b) arising from the transactions of purchase of three properties by the assessee had escaped assessment. Ld. AR submitted that the Issue No. 2 raised by Ld. PCIT was neither a reason of re- opening nor a matter which was considered by Ld. AO during the course of re-assessment proceeding in terms of the main body of section

IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. JCIT TDS INDORE, INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniidea Cellular Ltd. Jcit 139-140 Electronics Complex Indore Vs. Pardeshipura Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aaacb 2100P Assessee By Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Gagan Tiwari, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.09.2023

5 of 9 xxx Section 273B: Penalty not to be imposed in Certain Cases: Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of clause (b) of Subsection (1) of Section 271, Section 271A, Section 271AA, Section 271B, Section 271BA, Section 271BB, Section 271C, Section 271CA, Section 271D, Section 271E, Section 271F, Section 271FA, Section 271FB, Section 271G, clause (c) or clause

IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. JCIT TDS INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed

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

b) or clause (c) of Subsection (2) of Section 273, no penalty shall be imposable on the person or the assessee, as the case may be, for any failure referred to in the said provisions if he proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure. 60. The ambit of “reasonable cause” under Section 273B requires our scrutiny before

IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. JCIT TDS INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed

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

b) or clause (c) of Subsection (2) of Section 273, no penalty shall be imposable on the person or the assessee, as the case may be, for any failure referred to in the said provisions if he proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure. 60. The ambit of “reasonable cause” under Section 273B requires our scrutiny before

IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. JCIT TDS INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed

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

b) or clause (c) of Subsection (2) of Section 273, no penalty shall be imposable on the person or the assessee, as the case may be, for any failure referred to in the said provisions if he proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure. 60. The ambit of “reasonable cause” under Section 273B requires our scrutiny before