AJAY KUMAR BALMUKUND JHAWAR HUF,SENDHWA vs. ITO SENDHWA, SENDHWA

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

capital gain as claimed under Section 10(38) by 5 M/s Ajay Kumar Balmukund Jhawar-HUF ITA No.244, 249 & 250/Ind/2019

M/S. BALMUKUND DHANRAJ JHAWAR HUF,SENDHWA vs. THE ITO SENDHWA, SENDHWA

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

capital gain as claimed under Section 10(38) by 5 M/s Ajay Kumar Balmukund Jhawar-HUF ITA No.244, 249 & 250/Ind/2019

JAYA JUNEJA,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(4), INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 50C of the Act and determination of long-term capital gains involve examination of factual aspects and supporting evidences, the assessee deserves one final opportunity to present her case on merits. It is a settled position of law that assessment proceedings are quasi-judicial in nature and the object of such proceedings is to assess the correct taxable income

ITO 2(1), UJJAIN vs. SHRI SANTOSH AGRAWAL PROP. M/S. SANTOSH ENTERPRISES, UJJAIN

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2010-11

capital gain is arising out of the sale of property at Survey No.119, Village: Goyala Khundra, Tehsil Ujjain found less since the sale consideration was taken less than the guideline value. Consequently notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued. The reassessment was completed upon making addition of Rs.11,01,028/- in the hands of the appellant. It appears that

DCIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL vs. SHAILENDRA SHARMA, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment

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

section 158BC in the case of 'R' did not survive at all since it had been struck down being time barred. The additions made on substantive basis had not been decided by deleting the same from assessee's individual hands rather they were thrown along with the block assessment order, meaning thereby, there was no substantive addition in existence

MOHAR SINGH GOUR,BHOPAL vs. ITO NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is dismissed is non payment of advance

Bench: Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

249(4)(b) the assessee was required to pay an amount equal to the amount of advance tax as the same is not paid and hence appeal is not admitted and is dismissed for statistical purpose. 2.5 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned order” has preferred this instant second appeal before this Tribunal and has raised following grounds

MOHAR SINGH GOUR,BHOPAL vs. ITO NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is dismissed is non payment of advance

Bench: Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

249(4)(b) the assessee was required to pay an amount equal to the amount of advance tax as the same is not paid and hence appeal is not admitted and is dismissed for statistical purpose. 2.5 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned order” has preferred this instant second appeal before this Tribunal and has raised following grounds

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

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 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

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

249 (Del.) in which it was held as under : Both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal have returned a concurrent and clear finding of fact that the notice under s. 143(2) was issued on 23rd March, 2000 and since the return was filed on 27th March, 2000, the notice was not a valid one and, therefore, the assessment completed

MAHESH KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ADDL JCIT (A) -1 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Appeal is allowed

CAPITAL GAINS\nपूंजीगत प्राप्तियां\n0\n0\n5\nINCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES\nअन्य सूत्रों से आय\n3,766\n3,766\n6\nINTRA HEAD ADJUSTMENTS\nNA\n0\n7\nGROSS TOTAL INCOME(AFTER\nINTRA HEAD ADJUSTMENTS) 1\n5,28,449\n7,98,449\n8\nLOSS OF CURRENT YEAR ADJUSTED\n0\n0\n9\nLOSS OF PREVIOUS YEARS\nADJUSTED\n0\n0\n10\nINCOME\nDETAILS\nGROSS

M/S. MANISH FILMS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ITO 3(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2010-11

capital gain of Rs.80,58,000/- on the ground that provisions of section 50C of the I.T. Act, 1961 [ITA 152/Ind/2015] [M/s. Manish Films Pvt. Ltd., Indore] were not applicable to transfer of land and building being a lease hold property”. The said question was dismissed on the ground that the revenue had not preferred any appeal against the order

SAHARAYN UNIVERSAL MULTIPURPOSE SOCIETY LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

capital gain @ 10 per\ncent. The justice must not only be done but seem to have been done as observed by Lord\nHewart, C.J. in R. v. Susses Justices (1924) 1 KB 256.))\n15. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and restore the\norder of the CIT(A).\"\nPage 12 of 28\nSaharayn Universal Multipurpose

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

capital gains were clearly available before the\nAssessing Officer during the original assessment proceedings and that the\nRevenue had not brought any material before it, which was not disclosed by\nthe assessee in the original return of income. Thus, the Tribunal concluded\nthat there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose any material\nfact relevant

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, INDORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

gains from incidental business [Section (4A)]: Where a trust or an institution is also carrying on any business activity, the provisions of Section 11)1), (2), (3) and (3A) regarding exemption etc. shall not apply in respect of income earned from such business activity. However, if such business is incidental to the attainment of the objects of the trust/institution