INDORE PARASPAR SAHAKARI GRAH NIRMAN SANSTHA SAMITI,INDORE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Indore Paraspar Sahkari Acit, Circle 2(1) Grih Nirman Sanstha Indore Vs. 224-Mishal Plaza, Tilakpath, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaaai2629G Assessee By Ms. Shreya Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.06.2024 O R D E R

section 50C of the Act instead of making the entire addition of full value consideration. The A.O has passed giving effect order as per the directions of the CIT(A) and thereby a capital gain of Rs.12,07,193

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

Appeals are allowed

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

Capital gains") for— (i) the transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of a licence) in respect of a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade mark or similar property ; (ii) the imparting of any information concerning the working of, or the use of, a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade

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

Appeals are allowed

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

Capital gains") for— (i) the transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of a licence) in respect of a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade mark or similar property ; (ii) the imparting of any information concerning the working of, or the use of, a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade

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

Appeals are allowed

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

Capital gains") for— (i) the transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of a licence) in respect of a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade mark or similar property ; (ii) the imparting of any information concerning the working of, or the use of, a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade

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)

Capital gains") for— (i) the transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of a licence) in respect of a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade mark or similar property ; (ii) the imparting of any information concerning the working of, or the use of, a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade

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)

Capital gains") for— (i) the transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of a licence) in respect of a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade mark or similar property ; (ii) the imparting of any information concerning the working of, or the use of, a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade

ACIT (CENTRAL) 1 INDORE , INDORE vs. SHRI KANTILAL KATARIA, RATLAM

Bench: Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

193 As per the seized material, Diary quantity of purchases in purchase [Summary A-8, the purchase quantity is only diary is much less than quantity of of 2510.330 M.T. whereas as per the sales stated in various sales quantities other seized diaries viz. A-1 to A- diaries. As per the seized records, of 7, the total quantity

JCIT OSD (CENTRAL)-1, RATLAM vs. SHRI KANTILAL KATARIA, RATLAM

Bench: Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

193 As per the seized material, Diary quantity of purchases in purchase [Summary A-8, the purchase quantity is only diary is much less than quantity of of 2510.330 M.T. whereas as per the sales stated in various sales quantities other seized diaries viz. A-1 to A- diaries. As per the seized records, of 7, the total quantity

SARSWATI VIDHYA PRATISHTHAN M.P ,BHUPAL vs. THE ACIT 2(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisarswati Vidhya Pratishthan Dcit (E) M.P. Bhopal Vs. 01, Harshwardhan Nagar Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aadas0899M Assessee By Shri Santosh Deshmukh & Shri Parth Jhawar, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2023

capital and revenue. It only mandates that expenditure should be on the objects of trust which is very clear from above submission that the expenditure incurred was towards the objects of the trust. 3.5 In support of his contention he has relied upon the following judgements: i.[2007] 14 SOT 318 (Mumbai)[22-12-2005] Institute of Marine Engineers

COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2007-08 Computer Sciences Acit, Corporation India Private Company Circle 1(3), Limited, Chennai [Formerly Covansys (India) Private Limited], बनाम/ Unit 13, Block 2, Sdf Buildings, Vs. Madras Export Processing Zone, Tambaram, Chennai (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaacc1351M Assessee By Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. Shri Abhishek Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement

capital expenditure. Page 5 of 47 Computer Sciences Corporation India Private Limited, Chennai Assessment year 2007-08 24. The ld. AO has erred in applying Rule 8D for the subject A.Y. and erred in disallowing expenditure towards earning of such income, under section 14A, whereas, no expenditure was in fact incurred by the assessee towards earning such income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, INDORE

Appeals are allowed and revenue’s appeals

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

193 ITR 321 (SC). 11. Ld. counsel for the assessee also requested for admission of additional evidences under Rule 29 read with Rule 18(4) of the Appellate Tribunal Rules,1963 filed in support of the claim that the expenditure incurred under the City Environmental Development and Preservation Expenses are revenue in nature. The prayer made by the assessee requesting

INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,INDORE vs. DCIT ( EXEMPTION CIRCLE) , BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed and revenue’s appeals

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

193 ITR 321 (SC). 11. Ld. counsel for the assessee also requested for admission of additional evidences under Rule 29 read with Rule 18(4) of the Appellate Tribunal Rules,1963 filed in support of the claim that the expenditure incurred under the City Environmental Development and Preservation Expenses are revenue in nature. The prayer made by the assessee requesting

INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,INDORE vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION CIRCLE), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed and revenue’s appeals

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

193 ITR 321 (SC). 11. Ld. counsel for the assessee also requested for admission of additional evidences under Rule 29 read with Rule 18(4) of the Appellate Tribunal Rules,1963 filed in support of the claim that the expenditure incurred under the City Environmental Development and Preservation Expenses are revenue in nature. The prayer made by the assessee requesting

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, INDORE

Appeals are allowed and revenue’s appeals

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

193 ITR 321 (SC). 11. Ld. counsel for the assessee also requested for admission of additional evidences under Rule 29 read with Rule 18(4) of the Appellate Tribunal Rules,1963 filed in support of the claim that the expenditure incurred under the City Environmental Development and Preservation Expenses are revenue in nature. The prayer made by the assessee requesting

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION, BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, INDORE, INDORE

Appeals are allowed and revenue’s appeals

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

193 ITR 321 (SC). 11. Ld. counsel for the assessee also requested for admission of additional evidences under Rule 29 read with Rule 18(4) of the Appellate Tribunal Rules,1963 filed in support of the claim that the expenditure incurred under the City Environmental Development and Preservation Expenses are revenue in nature. The prayer made by the assessee requesting

INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,INDORE vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION CIRCLE), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed and revenue’s appeals

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

193 ITR 321 (SC). 11. Ld. counsel for the assessee also requested for admission of additional evidences under Rule 29 read with Rule 18(4) of the Appellate Tribunal Rules,1963 filed in support of the claim that the expenditure incurred under the City Environmental Development and Preservation Expenses are revenue in nature. The prayer made by the assessee requesting

INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,INDORE vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION CIRCLE), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed and revenue’s appeals

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

193 ITR 321 (SC). 11. Ld. counsel for the assessee also requested for admission of additional evidences under Rule 29 read with Rule 18(4) of the Appellate Tribunal Rules,1963 filed in support of the claim that the expenditure incurred under the City Environmental Development and Preservation Expenses are revenue in nature. The prayer made by the assessee requesting

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, INDORE

Appeals are allowed and revenue’s appeals

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

193 ITR 321 (SC). 11. Ld. counsel for the assessee also requested for admission of additional evidences under Rule 29 read with Rule 18(4) of the Appellate Tribunal Rules,1963 filed in support of the claim that the expenditure incurred under the City Environmental Development and Preservation Expenses are revenue in nature. The prayer made by the assessee requesting