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

8. The only legal issue involved in this case is that whether the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act on the interest earned on Fixed Deposits made in a Co-operative Bank (GSCB) or not. 9. On this issue, we are guided by the judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case

M/S MADHYA PRADESH MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

8. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and gone through the material available on the file. We find that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of India Trade Promotion Organization vs. DGIT(E) [2015] 53 taxmann.com 404 (Del) has held as under: “54. It would be pertinent to reiterate that Section 2

M/S MADHYA PRADESH MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT, BHOPAL

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

8. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and gone through the material available on the file. We find that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of India Trade Promotion Organization vs. DGIT(E) [2015] 53 taxmann.com 404 (Del) has held as under: “54. It would be pertinent to reiterate that Section 2

M/S. ARIHANT CHERITABLE TRUST,INDORE vs. THE ITO (TDS)-1, INDORE

In the result, we find no force in the ground of the Revenue, hence dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2015-16

TDS at the rate of 2% under section 194C of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 pursuant to a contract entered into between the appellant and M/s Hoswin Incinerator Private Limited. 1.4.1] The Ld CIT(A)-1, Indore dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant observing that the appellant failed to controvert the findings of the assessing officer given at Para

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

Appeals are allowed

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

2 & 6 to section 9(1)(vi) and accordingly held assessee as liable for TDS u/s 194J. However, it is the submission of assessee that the impugned payment is covered by none. Therefore, the assessee has raised two separate grounds, namely Ground No. IV and Ground No. V to deal both points respectively. 8

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

Appeals are allowed

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

2 & 6 to section 9(1)(vi) and accordingly held assessee as liable for TDS u/s 194J. However, it is the submission of assessee that the impugned payment is covered by none. Therefore, the assessee has raised two separate grounds, namely Ground No. IV and Ground No. V to deal both points respectively. 8

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

Appeals are allowed

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

2 & 6 to section 9(1)(vi) and accordingly held assessee as liable for TDS u/s 194J. However, it is the submission of assessee that the impugned payment is covered by none. Therefore, the assessee has raised two separate grounds, namely Ground No. IV and Ground No. V to deal both points respectively. 8

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)

2 & 6 to section 9(1)(vi) and accordingly held assessee as liable for TDS u/s 194J. However, it is the submission of assessee that the impugned payment is covered by none. Therefore, the assessee has raised two separate grounds, namely Ground No. IV and Ground No. V to deal both points respectively. 8

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)

2 & 6 to section 9(1)(vi) and accordingly held assessee as liable for TDS u/s 194J. However, it is the submission of assessee that the impugned payment is covered by none. Therefore, the assessee has raised two separate grounds, namely Ground No. IV and Ground No. V to deal both points respectively. 8

THE CIVIL SURGEON CUM SUPRINTENDENT,JHABUA vs. JCIT(TDS), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

8 grounds of appeals but in sum and substance is that the Ld' CIT (Al erred in conlirmilrg the Penalty (Rs. 521960 forAY:o9-10), (Rs. 72,OOO lt.Y. 10-111, ( k. L,3d+,OOO A.Y. 11-12) levied ugder section 272A(2)(k) of the A,ct for the delay in submissions of TDS

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

2) and also the assessment year for which such credit may be given." 7. Under sub-section (1) of Section 200 any person deducting tax at source would pay within the prescribed time the said sum to the credit of the Central Government under sub-section (3) of Section 200 such person would file periodic statements of tax deducted

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

2) and also the assessment year for which such credit may be given." 7. Under sub-section (1) of Section 200 any person deducting tax at source would pay within the prescribed time the said sum to the credit of the Central Government under sub-section (3) of Section 200 such person would file periodic statements of tax deducted

M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., UNIT SATNA CEMENT WORKS,SATNA vs. ITO (IT & TP), BHOPAL

In the result, Assessee’s appeals

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

TDS under section 195. 13. We notice that to give effect to the order of this Tribunal dated 24.12.2014 proceedings were initiated by ITO (IT&TP), Bhopal in the case of the appellant. As per para 58 of the ITAT's order, it was held by the ITAT that the scope of Section 5(2

M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., UNIT SATNA CEMENT WORKS,SATNA vs. ITO (IT & TP), BHOPAL

In the result, Assessee’s appeals

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

TDS under section 195. 13. We notice that to give effect to the order of this Tribunal dated 24.12.2014 proceedings were initiated by ITO (IT&TP), Bhopal in the case of the appellant. As per para 58 of the ITAT's order, it was held by the ITAT that the scope of Section 5(2

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

2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under section 200A payable under section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel

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

2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under section 200A payable under section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel

SHRI ANIL KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. THE ITO-5(3), INDORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2009-10

TDS. 2. The Learned CIT Appeals-II and the AO has failed to appreciate and or over looked. (i) That the payments made to the transporters are not in respect of a transport contract for carriage of goods. (ii) That the payment made are in respect of hire of transport” 3. Brief facts of the case limited to the issue

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. SHRI RITESH JAIN, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani & It(Ss)Ano.14/Ind/2022 (Assesssment Year 2011-12

8. On the other hand, Ld. DR has submitted that the AO has passed the impugned order being a time barring assessment and therefore, it was not possible to wait for four weeks after disposing of the objections against notice u/s 148 of the Act. 9. We have considered rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. There