SHRI KRISHNA MOHAN CHOURSIYA, RAJGARH vs. ITO, RAJGARH

In the result, the assessee’s appeal i

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2014-15

section 10(37) of the Act subject to conditions specified therein. However, since land compulsorily acquired by the Government in the present case was a rural agricultural land, there arises no question of taxability of capital gain on compulsory acquisition of such land. Accordingly, we set aside the findings of Ld. CIT(A) and delete the addition of Rs.9

RUPESH VYAS,INDORE vs. THE ACIT3(1), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri B.M. Biyani

capital gains on sale of shares u/s 10(38) etc. it is clear from the orders of the lower authorities that the assessee has not placed nay material to prove that her transactions are genuine. She has also not placed any material to prove that the claim of exemption u/s 10(38) is genuine and valid. Since, trio right

RUPESH VYAS,INDORE vs. THE ACIT3(1), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

capital gain and claimed the amount as exempt u/s 10(38) of the LT. Act by way of taking accommodation entry. The purchase of shares is an off market transaction. The appellant is a not regular investor in the shares and invested in shares for the first time and earned return of more than 200 times within a short span

PARMANAND SACHDEV,INDORE vs. ITO 5(5), INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

capital gain and claimed the amount as exempt u/s 10(38) of the LT. Act by way of taking accommodation entry. The purchase of shares is an off market transaction. The appellant had made investment through the derecognized broker and had earned excessive return within a short span of period which is Page 8 of 17 Shri Parmanand Sachdev Assessment

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)

Section 194J read with clause (b) of the Explanation to Section 194J of the Income Tax Act, 1961, [`Act', for short] which, inter alia, states that "fees for technical services" shall have the same meaning as contained in Explanation 2 to clause (vii) of Section 9(1) of the Act. Right from 1979 various judgments of the High Courts

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)

Section 194J read with clause (b) of the Explanation to Section 194J of the Income Tax Act, 1961, [`Act', for short] which, inter alia, states that "fees for technical services" shall have the same meaning as contained in Explanation 2 to clause (vii) of Section 9(1) of the Act. Right from 1979 various judgments of the High Courts

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

SANTOSH RATHORE,INDORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE - 1, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

capital gain of Rs.32.79,066/- declared by the\nassessee and claimed exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act is bogus, therefore, there\nis live nexus between the information available and the satisfaction recorded\nand, accordingly, Ld. CIT-DR submit that the case of the assessee was\nrightly reopened and prayed accordingly.\nPage 19 of 49\nSantosh Rathore\nITA No. 451/Ind/2024

M/S PATIDAR HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE,UJJAIN vs. THE ITO 2(1), UJJAIN

In the result, ITA No.1007/Ind/2016 is partly allowed, is allowed and ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Capital gain is an independent and different source of income and was not the subject matter of appeal before him nor was the issue considered by the Assessing Officer by framing an assessment order. Instead the Assessing Officer termed the same as commission on the sale of land. Thus, order of the Commissioner (Appeals) could not be sustained. The Commissioner

M/S. PATIDAR HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE,UJJAIN vs. THE ITO 2(1), UJJAIN

In the result, ITA No.1007/Ind/2016 is partly allowed, is allowed and ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Capital gain is an independent and different source of income and was not the subject matter of appeal before him nor was the issue considered by the Assessing Officer by framing an assessment order. Instead the Assessing Officer termed the same as commission on the sale of land. Thus, order of the Commissioner (Appeals) could not be sustained. The Commissioner

M/S. PATIDAR HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE,UJJAIN vs. THE ITO 2(1), UJJAIN

In the result, ITA No.1007/Ind/2016 is partly allowed, is allowed and ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Capital gain is an independent and different source of income and was not the subject matter of appeal before him nor was the issue considered by the Assessing Officer by framing an assessment order. Instead the Assessing Officer termed the same as commission on the sale of land. Thus, order of the Commissioner (Appeals) could not be sustained. The Commissioner

THE ITO 3(2), INDORE vs. M/S. APEX REALITIES, INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2015-16

201, Puspratan Paradise, 9/5, New Palasia Indore : Respondent PAN ABAFA3997P Apex Realities ITA No.899 & 912/Ind/2018 Revenue by Shri S.S. Mantri, CIT-DR Assessee by Shri C.P. Rawka, CA Date of Hearing 07.06.2021 Date of Pronouncement 01.09.2021 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, A.M The above captioned appeals filed at the instance of the assessee and Cross appeal raised

M/S. APEX REALITIES,INDORE vs. THE ITO 3(2), INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2015-16

201, Puspratan Paradise, 9/5, New Palasia Indore : Respondent PAN ABAFA3997P Apex Realities ITA No.899 & 912/Ind/2018 Revenue by Shri S.S. Mantri, CIT-DR Assessee by Shri C.P. Rawka, CA Date of Hearing 07.06.2021 Date of Pronouncement 01.09.2021 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, A.M The above captioned appeals filed at the instance of the assessee and Cross appeal raised

MARIAMMA KURIAN,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Boradmariamma Kurian, Income Tax Officer 1(1) Mig-93 A-Sector, Bhopal Vs. Sonagiri Piplani, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Abspk4941P Assessee By S/Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.08.2025 O R D E R

201 ITR 747 (Cal.); Krishna Kumar Paliwal 9 IT] 348 (Trib. Indore); Shri Madhusudan Dhakad 44 IT] 401 (Trib. Indore) 4. The assessee in any case, purchased another agricultural land for Rs. 30.60 lakhs. This fact was also uncontroverted. Thus, the capital gains was invested in purchase of another agricultural land and was exempt u/s. 54B in any case

M/S SANGHVI FOODS P LTD, ,INDORE vs. ITO (IT & TP) , BHOPAL

In the result common issue raised in

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

201(1A) 01 Payment to M/s 38,093 6,349 2,616 654 Buhler AG Switzerland 02 Payment to M/s 2,83,438 47,240 19,463 3,892 Buhler AG ITANo.743 & 744/Ind/2018 Sanghvi Foods Private Limited Switzerland Total 22079 4546 05] That on perusal of the Purchase Order and Invoices Your Honours will appreciate that Assessee company has basically

M/S SANGHVI FOODS P LTD, ,INDORE vs. ITO (IT & TP) , BHOPAL

In the result common issue raised in

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

201(1A) 01 Payment to M/s 38,093 6,349 2,616 654 Buhler AG Switzerland 02 Payment to M/s 2,83,438 47,240 19,463 3,892 Buhler AG ITANo.743 & 744/Ind/2018 Sanghvi Foods Private Limited Switzerland Total 22079 4546 05] That on perusal of the Purchase Order and Invoices Your Honours will appreciate that Assessee company has basically