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

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

Appeals are allowed

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

201(1)/(1A) of the Act. Aggrieved by orders of AO, the assessee carried matters in first-appeals but did not get any success. Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal by way of next appeal. 4. Ld. AR for assessee drew our attention to above grounds of appeals and submitted that the ITA No. 109/Ind/2023

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

Appeals are allowed

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

201(1)/(1A) of the Act. Aggrieved by orders of AO, the assessee carried matters in first-appeals but did not get any success. Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal by way of next appeal. 4. Ld. AR for assessee drew our attention to above grounds of appeals and submitted that the ITA No. 109/Ind/2023

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

Appeals are allowed

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

201(1)/(1A) of the Act. Aggrieved by orders of AO, the assessee carried matters in first-appeals but did not get any success. Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal by way of next appeal. 4. Ld. AR for assessee drew our attention to above grounds of appeals and submitted that the ITA No. 109/Ind/2023

THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE vs. DR. SHRI RAJEEV CHAUDHARY, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed and cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble I Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2008-09 Pan : Abkpc5729K Assistant Commissioner Of V/S Dr.Rajeev Choudhary Income Tax, 1, Shiv Vilas Palace Circle-2(1), Indore Indore

201 32,79,854 4,66,25,676 6 2008-09 1,78,51,212 1,18,57,282 4,02,19,282 The nature of transaction of sale and purchase of shares has remained the same year after and the assessee has consistently shown them as investment. After considering the above statement CIT(A) "it was considered

ACIT CENTRAL-2 INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI .GAURAV TEKRIWAL, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Central -2 Shri Gaurav Tekriwal Indore बनाम/ 204, Princess Valley, South Tukoganj, Indore Vs. (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Acppt 1628 Q Assessee By Shri Anil Kamal Garg, Arpit Gaur, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.11.2022

capital gain under Section 54F of the Act. It was, rejected by the ITO as also by the Tribunal. This Court observed that substantial investment was made in construction of the house. In view of the requirement of Section 54F of the Act, the Tribunal, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was not justified. We are fortified

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

1. The assessee has not transacted in the share in market in any script other than Mis Lifeline Drugs & Pharma Ltd. This clearly shows that the assessee had no knowledge of the market and the present transactions are part of design to create capital without paying taxes on the same. 2. With collusion of the broker, shares were purchased

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 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

M/S SHRI GURMUKHDAS CONTRACTORS P LTD,BHOPAL vs. DCIT-CENRRAL-1, BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeals in I

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

201 1-12 to 2017-18 j Shri Gurumukhdas Constractors Pvt. Ltd. 4 AAKPV6009J 153A 2011-12 to 2017- 18 Suresh Vaswani 5 Sushil Vaswani AAKPV5987D 153A 2011-12 to 2017-18 4. It should be ensured that the final assessment orders are passed and served on the assessees well in time. A copy of the final assessment orders should

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

THE ACIT-2(1), UJJAIN vs. SHRI SANJAY BAGDI, UJJAIN

In the result appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year 2012-13 Assistant Commissioner Of Shri Sanjay Bagdi, Income Tax – 2(1), Vs. 173 Alakhdham Nagar, Ujjain Ujjain (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Ahcpb6349L Revenue By Shri K.G. Goyal, Sr.Dr Assessee By S/Shri S.S. Deshpande & Bhavesh Netkar,Cas Date Of Hearing 01.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 14.11.2018 O R D E R

201 0-1l. Both the above assessments 3 Sanjay Bagdi have been completed u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act. It will be appropriate to adopt similar net profit in this year also in order to meet the end of the justice. During this year the appellant is in receipts and Rs.6,04,82,012/- as contract receipts. 1

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5(1), INDORE vs. M/S SUNDERDEEP CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. , INDORE

In the result both the appeals of the revenue vide ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

capital expenditure in the form of club house is not allowable. AO has also reproduced relevant page of sale deed of plot of land at page no. 10 of the assessment order which clearly specifies that the buyers of plot in the said project will not have ownership right over the club house. 8. In view of the above discussion