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

73 TTJ 893 (ITAT, Ahmedabad) (iii) J.R. Organics Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2009) 122 TTJ 887 (ITAT, Lucknow) (iv) ACIT Vs. Popular Vehicles & Services Ltd. (ITAT, Coachin) Ld. AR submitted that in these decisions, it has been loudly held that section 41(1) cannot be applied unless the liability is actually written off in books of account

DR. VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT CIR. 2(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

TDS certificates, Self Assessment tax Challan already submitted on 2ih Aug 2013, enclosed again now. Further the tax is already appearing in the form 26as of the assessee so same can be verified from there. (Copy enclosed) 10.Please provide the copies of the Chalan of Bonus, Vat Tax, C.S.T paid in Head Office and Professional Tax, Bonus and Service Taxes

DR. VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIR. 2(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

TDS certificates, Self Assessment tax Challan already submitted on 2ih Aug 2013, enclosed again now. Further the tax is already appearing in the form 26as of the assessee so same can be verified from there. (Copy enclosed) 10.Please provide the copies of the Chalan of Bonus, Vat Tax, C.S.T paid in Head Office and Professional Tax, Bonus and Service Taxes

SHRI VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE PR.CIT-1, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

TDS certificates, Self Assessment tax Challan already submitted on 2ih Aug 2013, enclosed again now. Further the tax is already appearing in the form 26as of the assessee so same can be verified from there. (Copy enclosed) 10.Please provide the copies of the Chalan of Bonus, Vat Tax, C.S.T paid in Head Office and Professional Tax, Bonus and Service Taxes

THE AIT,ENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SURYA INFRAVENTURE P LTD, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

TDS on several other payments made during the year and consequently, no disallowance was called for under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 9.1 We further find that the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of the assessee itself for the A.Y. 2009-10 vide order dated 10.11.2014 approved the net profit rate of 5% in the business carried

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

TDS on several other payments made during the year and consequently, no disallowance was called for under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 9.1 We further find that the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of the assessee itself for the A.Y. 2009-10 vide order dated 10.11.2014 approved the net profit rate of 5% in the business carried

THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

TDS on several other payments made during the year and consequently, no disallowance was called for under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 9.1 We further find that the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of the assessee itself for the A.Y. 2009-10 vide order dated 10.11.2014 approved the net profit rate of 5% in the business carried

THE DCIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PVT. LTD., RAISEN

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

1,06,99,464/- for A.Y. 10-11 and Rs. 3,21,61,710/- from A.Y. 11-12 may be deleted. 6.3.4. The learned Counsel for the assessee, also placed reliance in the case of Sonata Infra Technology Ltd. (2006) 75 SOT 465(Mum), Tata Consultancy Ltd. 271 ITR 401 , Lucent Technologies Institute 2009-TIOL_161-ITAT-DEL, Samsung Electronics

M/S ANDRITZ HYDRO PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS V A TECH HYDRO INDAI PVT. LTD.),MANDIDEEP vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

1,06,99,464/- for A.Y. 10-11 and Rs. 3,21,61,710/- from A.Y. 11-12 may be deleted. 6.3.4. The learned Counsel for the assessee, also placed reliance in the case of Sonata Infra Technology Ltd. (2006) 75 SOT 465(Mum), Tata Consultancy Ltd. 271 ITR 401 , Lucent Technologies Institute 2009-TIOL_161-ITAT-DEL, Samsung Electronics

M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS VA TECH HYDRO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

1,06,99,464/- for A.Y. 10-11 and Rs. 3,21,61,710/- from A.Y. 11-12 may be deleted. 6.3.4. The learned Counsel for the assessee, also placed reliance in the case of Sonata Infra Technology Ltd. (2006) 75 SOT 465(Mum), Tata Consultancy Ltd. 271 ITR 401 , Lucent Technologies Institute 2009-TIOL_161-ITAT-DEL, Samsung Electronics

THE ACIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PVT. LTD., RAISEN

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

1,06,99,464/- for A.Y. 10-11 and Rs. 3,21,61,710/- from A.Y. 11-12 may be deleted. 6.3.4. The learned Counsel for the assessee, also placed reliance in the case of Sonata Infra Technology Ltd. (2006) 75 SOT 465(Mum), Tata Consultancy Ltd. 271 ITR 401 , Lucent Technologies Institute 2009-TIOL_161-ITAT-DEL, Samsung Electronics

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

73-77 Shiv Vankeshawar Educational & Social Welfare Trust (2019) 106 Taxmann.com 249 (Delhi –Tribunal) 10 Order dated 13/05/2020 passed in case of Bhariya Kissan 78-86 Chartitable Club Trust, Roorkee v. The Income Tax officer Exemptions (Dehradun) by Hon’ble ITAT Dehradun Bench) 13. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us and carefully gone through

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

73-77 Shiv Vankeshawar Educational & Social Welfare Trust (2019) 106 Taxmann.com 249 (Delhi –Tribunal) 10 Order dated 13/05/2020 passed in case of Bhariya Kissan 78-86 Chartitable Club Trust, Roorkee v. The Income Tax officer Exemptions (Dehradun) by Hon’ble ITAT Dehradun Bench) 13. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us and carefully gone through

SH. NARENDRA MODI,INDORE vs. ITO TDS-1 , INDORE

In the result, all the 29 appeals at the instance of assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2014-15 (Q-1)

1) and 201(1A) on the amount of TDS whereas in the present cases the issue were pertains to liability of late fee u/s 234E of the Act for delay in filing TDS statement which was inserted from 01.06.2015. 10. On similar facts, we have decided the same issue in the assessee's own case 'SudershanGoyal vs. DCIT (TDS

PENTAGON LABS LTD.,INDORE vs. IITO TDS-1, INDORE

In the result, all the 29 appeals at the instance of assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2014-15 (Q-1)

1) and 201(1A) on the amount of TDS whereas in the present cases the issue were pertains to liability of late fee u/s 234E of the Act for delay in filing TDS statement which was inserted from 01.06.2015. 10. On similar facts, we have decided the same issue in the assessee's own case 'SudershanGoyal vs. DCIT (TDS

SMT BEENA SANGHVI, INDORE vs. THE DCIT-CPC,TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the 29 appeals at the instance of assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2014-15 (Q-1)

1) and 201(1A) on the amount of TDS whereas in the present cases the issue were pertains to liability of late fee u/s 234E of the Act for delay in filing TDS statement which was inserted from 01.06.2015. 10. On similar facts, we have decided the same issue in the assessee's own case 'SudershanGoyal vs. DCIT (TDS

SINDH PUNJAB MERCANTILE CREDIT SAHKARITA LTD.,INDORE vs. ITO (TDS)-2, INDORE

In the result, all the 29 appeals at the instance of assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2014-15 (Q-1)

1) and 201(1A) on the amount of TDS whereas in the present cases the issue were pertains to liability of late fee u/s 234E of the Act for delay in filing TDS statement which was inserted from 01.06.2015. 10. On similar facts, we have decided the same issue in the assessee's own case 'SudershanGoyal vs. DCIT (TDS

M.P.RAJYA POWER LOOM BUNKAR SAHAKARI SANGH MARYADIT,BURHANPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the 29 appeals at the instance of assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2014-15 (Q-1)

1) and 201(1A) on the amount of TDS whereas in the present cases the issue were pertains to liability of late fee u/s 234E of the Act for delay in filing TDS statement which was inserted from 01.06.2015. 10. On similar facts, we have decided the same issue in the assessee's own case 'SudershanGoyal vs. DCIT (TDS