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

SECTION 271C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (" ACT") AMOUNTING TO RS 6,71,51,801/ 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax - Appeals, ["the ld. CIT(A)"], erred in upholding the order passed by DCIT, TDS

JARNALBEER SINGH BHATIA,KHANDWA vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL-3, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A Nos.19 To 23/Ind/2023 & Ita No.226/Ind/2023 Ays : 2013-14 To 2018-19 Jarnalbeer Singh Bhatia, Dcit/Acit, बनाम/ Bhatia Transport (Central)-3, Vs. Services, Indore. Old Indore Lines, Pandhana Road, Khandwa (Pan: Aixpb4565C) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

TDS on such expenses and has failed to do so ? b) Without prejudice to the above, additional evidence was admitted without giving adequate opportunity to the AO ? c) Without prejudice to the above, there is non-compliance of section 194C(7) of the Income-tax Act by the assessee since the assessee failed to furnish, to the prescribed income

THE ACIT CENTRAL-3, INDORE vs. JARNALBEER SINGH BHATIA, KHANDWA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A Nos.19 To 23/Ind/2023 & Ita No.226/Ind/2023 Ays : 2013-14 To 2018-19 Jarnalbeer Singh Bhatia, Dcit/Acit, बनाम/ Bhatia Transport (Central)-3, Vs. Services, Indore. Old Indore Lines, Pandhana Road, Khandwa (Pan: Aixpb4565C) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

TDS on such expenses and has failed to do so ? b) Without prejudice to the above, additional evidence was admitted without giving adequate opportunity to the AO ? c) Without prejudice to the above, there is non-compliance of section 194C(7) of the Income-tax Act by the assessee since the assessee failed to furnish, to the prescribed income

THE DY. CIT 4(1), INDORE vs. M/S. VIJAYSHRI PACKAGING LTD. , INDORE

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Vijayshri Packaging Dcit-4(1), Vs. Limited, 34-C/2, Industrial Estate Laxmi Indore Bai Nagar, Indore (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aabcv0048B C.O.No.11/Ind/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Vijayshri Packaging Vs. Dcit-4(1), Limited, 34-C/2, Industrial Estate Indore Laxmi Bai Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No. Aabcv0048B Revenue By Shri Lal Chand, Cit Appellant By S/Shri Ajay Tulsiyan & Ranjan Agrawal, Cas Date Of Hearing 12.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2021 O R D E R

801), Sumati Dayal vs. Commissioner of Income-tax 1995 AIR 2109, McDowell & Co. Ltd. Vs the Commercial Tax Officer 1986 AIR 649, and NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd vs PCIT(2019),and their applicability in the case on hand. 5. The appellant craves leave to add to or deduct from or otherwise amend the above grounds of appeal. 3. Assessee

SHRI MANJEET SINGH BHATIA,INDORE vs. THE ADDL. CIT RANGE-3, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Manjeet Singh Bhatia Addl. Cit, Range-3 8/5, Bcc House Indore बनाम/ Manoramaganj Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Agjpb 0022 G Assessee By Shri Harsh Vijayvargiya, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.04.2023

801 (SC) and CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More (1969) 72 ITR 807 (SC). With such observations, Ld. AO made addition u/s 68. 6. During first-appeal, Ld. CIT(A) marshalled the facts from assessment- order and observed in the opening Para No. 4.1.1. of his order that the AO has made additions mainly because of twin-reasons, namely

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 3(1), INDORE vs. SHRI RAJEEV AJMERA, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms.Suchitra Kamble & Shrib.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit-3(1) Shri Rajeev Ajmera, Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Abgpa4930L Co No.23/Ind/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.51/Ind/2018) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Rajeev Ajmera, Dcit-3(1) Indore Indore बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Abgpa4930L Assessee By Shri Mahendra Mittal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 31.08.2022 आदेश/ O R D E R

section 14A was clearly applicable on assessee's investment in shares and mutual fund wherefrom income was exempt.” Page 2 of 17 Shri Rajeev Ajmera ITA No.51/Ind/2018& CO.No.23/Ind/2018 Assessment year 2010-11 Ground No. 1: 5. In this Ground, the issue involved is the deduction of commission- expenditure of Rs. 1,74,50,000/- claimed by the assessee

GLOBUS HOUSING,BHOPAL vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC, DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the “impugned

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

801 is also relevant where it has been held that matter has to be considered in the light of human probability. Merely because the payments were made by cheques and received by cheque does not render the transaction genuine. Given the circumstances, it is quite apparent that the paper documents filed by the appellant are sham and the paper evidence