SADHU RAM BALANI,INDORE vs. ITO-5(1), INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisadhu Ram Balani Ito-5(1) Flat No.B-503, Moti Mahal Indore Apartment 28-A, Sector-C Vs. Scheme No.71, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Abspb5367L Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 04.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2024

v. Renu Aggarwal reported in [2023] 153 taxmann.com 579 (SC) 3.1 Ld. AR has submitted that the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the recent judgments dated 30th April 2024 in case of CCIT vs. Shri Nilesh Jain HUF and other bunch of appeals in ITANo.56 of 2021 has considered an identical issue of long term capital gain arising from

SHRI VINOD CHOUDHARY,INDORE vs. ITO1 3), INDORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Vinod Choudhary, Ito 1(3) 12, Niranjanpur, Indore Vs. Lasudia, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Akrpv 4892 Q Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah & Soumya Bomb, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.02.2023

section 2(47)(v) just to deny the exemption claimed u/s 54F & 54B. The A.O had failed to appreciate that the transaction of the assessee not only falls under provision (v) of sec. 2(47) but it is also squarely covered under provision (i), (ii) and (vi) of sec. 2(47). (e) That the AO had erred in non relying

SHRI HUKUMCHAND CHOUDHARY ,INDORE vs. ITO (3),INDORE, INDORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

2(47) of the Act the Long Term Capital Gain accrued to the assessee in the A.Y. 2011-12. The assessee offered the same in his return of income and claimed exemption under Section 54F & 54B out of the Long Term Capital Gain income. The income arising out of sale of urban agricultural land was correctly shown

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), INDORE, INDORE vs. DIVINE INFRACREATION AND TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly quash the assessment-order made by AO.\nThe assessee's ground is allowed

47,22,100/- in\ntwo years, namely Rs.42,01,80,700/- in Previous Year 2009-10 relevant to\nAY 2010-11 and Rs.6,45,41,400/- in Previous Year 2010-11 relevant to AY\n2011-12. Accordingly, relying upon the provision of section 68(1), the CIT(A)\nalso held that the receipt to the extent of Rs.42

SHRI BHAWANI SHANKAR PARASHAR,INDORE vs. THE DCIT/ACIT 1 (2), INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Bhawani Shankar Pr. Cit-1 Prashar Indore 28, Lasudia Mori, Vijay Vs. Nagar, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bgbpp 2475 G Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2023

2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is reproduced as under: (47) Transfer in relation to a capital asset includes Any transaction involving the allowing of the possession of any immovable property to be taken or retained in part performance of a contract of the nature referred to in section 53A of the Transfer of Property

SHRI SURESH KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4(1), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

v) Broker receipt for sale of shares. (vi) Return filed for A.Y. 2013-14 on 30.07.2013 (vii) List of Investment as on 31.03.2013 (viii) Return filed for A.Y. 2012-13 on 30.07.2012, List of Investment as on 31.03.2012. It is relevant to mention that the above documents have already been annexed to the Paper Book as filed before us. 2

SMT. RUKMANI KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

v) Broker receipt for sale of shares. (vi) Return filed for A.Y. 2013-14 on 30.07.2013 (vii) List of Investment as on 31.03.2013 (viii) Return filed for A.Y. 2012-13 on 30.07.2012, List of Investment as on 31.03.2012. It is relevant to mention that the above documents have already been annexed to the Paper Book as filed before us. 2

RADHESHYAM KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ACIT4(1), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

v) Broker receipt for sale of shares. (vi) Return filed for A.Y. 2013-14 on 30.07.2013 (vii) List of Investment as on 31.03.2013 (viii) Return filed for A.Y. 2012-13 on 30.07.2012, List of Investment as on 31.03.2012. It is relevant to mention that the above documents have already been annexed to the Paper Book as filed before us. 2

SMT. SANDHYA KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ITO 4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

v) Broker receipt for sale of shares. (vi) Return filed for A.Y. 2013-14 on 30.07.2013 (vii) List of Investment as on 31.03.2013 (viii) Return filed for A.Y. 2012-13 on 30.07.2012, List of Investment as on 31.03.2012. It is relevant to mention that the above documents have already been annexed to the Paper Book as filed before us. 2

MOHANLAL KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4(1), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

v) Broker receipt for sale of shares. (vi) Return filed for A.Y. 2013-14 on 30.07.2013 (vii) List of Investment as on 31.03.2013 (viii) Return filed for A.Y. 2012-13 on 30.07.2012, List of Investment as on 31.03.2012. It is relevant to mention that the above documents have already been annexed to the Paper Book as filed before us. 2

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 is not attracted in the case of "revenue sharing contract". According to Respondent No.1, in such contracts there is only sharing of revenue and, therefore, payments by revenue sharing cannot constitute "fees" under Section 194J of the Act. This submission is not accepted by the Department. We leave it there because this submission

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 is not attracted in the case of "revenue sharing contract". According to Respondent No.1, in such contracts there is only sharing of revenue and, therefore, payments by revenue sharing cannot constitute "fees" under Section 194J of the Act. This submission is not accepted by the Department. We leave it there because this submission

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 is not attracted in the case of "revenue sharing contract". According to Respondent No.1, in such contracts there is only sharing of revenue and, therefore, payments by revenue sharing cannot constitute "fees" under Section 194J of the Act. This submission is not accepted by the Department. We leave it there because this submission

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

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 to s. 9(1)(vii) would also have to be construed as involving a human element • The expression 'technical service' would have reference to only technical service rendered by a human. Page 36 of 65 ITA No. 415/Ind/2014 & 265/Ind/2018 – AY 2010-11 M/s Vodafone Idea Ltd. (Formerly M/s Idea Cellular Ltd.) • MTNL or other companies do not provide

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 to s. 9(1)(vii) would also have to be construed as involving a human element • The expression 'technical service' would have reference to only technical service rendered by a human. Page 36 of 65 ITA No. 415/Ind/2014 & 265/Ind/2018 – AY 2010-11 M/s Vodafone Idea Ltd. (Formerly M/s Idea Cellular Ltd.) • MTNL or other companies do not provide

THE ITO 2 (2), BHOPAL vs. SHRI MUNSHIRAM BALKISHAN VERMA, BHOPAL

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court)

2(47) (v) R/W Sec. 53A Transfer of Property Act 1982. This view is supported in the decision in case of General Glass Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2007) 108 ITJ 854 (Mum) therefore it is not justified to hold that appellant transferred the land and due to this reason appellant is not liable for any gain as there

THE ITO 2 (2), BHOPAL vs. SHRI MUNSHIRAM BALKISHAN VERMA, BHOPAL

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court)

2(47) (v) R/W Sec. 53A Transfer of Property Act 1982. This view is supported in the decision in case of General Glass Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2007) 108 ITJ 854 (Mum) therefore it is not justified to hold that appellant transferred the land and due to this reason appellant is not liable for any gain as there