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

MAHENDRA SINGH CHAWLA,INDORE vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimahendra Singh Chawla Dcit Circle -1(1) 4/35 Gram Pigdamber A.B. Indore Road Near Rao Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aazpc0120C Assessee By None Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 02.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04 .09.2024

VI (1) Ludhiana. It was held that Irrevocable General Power of Attorney which leads to overall control of property in hands of developer, even if that does not involve exclusive possession of developer, would constitute transfer within the meaning of Section 2(47) (v). It was held that the possession contemplated by provisions of Section 2(47

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

47(gauhati) as well as other case laws as mentioned in the Order of First Appellate Authority while its judgment is strictly applicable in the instant case. The ITAT erred in not relying the case law of Suman Poddar Vs. ITO (2019) 112 taxmann.com 330(SC) and allowed the appeals by mentioning that lower authorities are not able to sustain

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

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

vi) of Section 2(47). 8. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the Ld. A.R. has distinguished the decision in factual aspect that of Balbir Singh Maini and Suraj Lamp & Industries. In this particular case the assessee is an individual and he has sold Hukumchand

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

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

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. That simply because purchase was in cash

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

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. That simply because purchase was in cash

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

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. That simply because purchase was in cash

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

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. That simply because purchase was in cash

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

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. That simply because purchase was in cash

M/S SHISHUKUNJ EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,THE SHISHUKUNJ INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL, GRAM JHALARIA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX. AAYKAR BHAWAN,

capital expenditure which otherwise is not an allowable\nexpenditure would be considered as application in the event of an assessee\ntrust enjoying the benefits of the registration. Under the circumstances, the law\nthat should apply is with reference to the year of default. He submitted that\nthe Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) should have acted

SH. PARMANAND SISODIYA,INDORE vs. ITO-1(2), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Parmanand Sisodiya, Ito, Flat No.404-405, Ax-18-C, 1(2), Satyamitra Paradise, Indore. Scheme No.71, Gumasta Vs. Nagar, Indore. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Alops1416K Assessee By Shri S.S.Solanki, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.10.2023

gain is provided if the assessee has purchased another agricultural land within the period of two years. Therefore, the term “transfer” used in the first part of Section 54-B is in the context of a transaction of transfer of Capital asset in any of the modes as per the definition provided u/s 2(47) of the Income

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

gains of business and profession, income from share in profits of firm and income from other sources. The return for the AY 2010-11 was filed by appellant on 17.03.2011 declaring total income of Rs. 4,49,440/-. On 12.07.2016, a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on Jain & Dixit Group. Certain documents were found

M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. ACIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

vi)The decision of Prabodhan Prasarak Shikshan Santhan Vs. DCIT–152 ITD 473 (Pune), wherein it is held as under :- The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sinhagad Technical Education Society v. CIT (Central) 2012) 343 ITR 23 (Bom) has held that "Every statutory provision which operates in respect of a trust, which has already been registered

M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

vi)The decision of Prabodhan Prasarak Shikshan Santhan Vs. DCIT–152 ITD 473 (Pune), wherein it is held as under :- The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sinhagad Technical Education Society v. CIT (Central) 2012) 343 ITR 23 (Bom) has held that "Every statutory provision which operates in respect of a trust, which has already been registered