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

THE DCIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, BHOPAL vs. M/S. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, BHOPAL

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

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

SMT. APARNA JHAWAR,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 the assessee cannot be termed as bogus. In support of his argument he relied upon a synopsis rendering into 49 pages along with following judgments:- S.No. Reference of the case Law Citation 1 Smt. Simi Verma

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 the assessee cannot be termed as bogus. In support of his argument he relied upon a synopsis rendering into 49 pages along with following judgments:- S.No. Reference of the case Law Citation 1 Smt. Simi Verma

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 the assessee cannot be termed as bogus. In support of his argument he relied upon a synopsis rendering into 49 pages along with following judgments:- S.No. Reference of the case Law Citation 1 Smt. Simi Verma

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

3, challenging the reopening of assessment and alleging non-compliance with the procedure under section 148A, were dismissed by holding that notice under section 148A(b) had in fact been issued and that at the stage of reopening, only prima facie material is required. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raymond Woollen Mills

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

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

COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2007-08 Computer Sciences Acit, Corporation India Private Company Circle 1(3), Limited, Chennai [Formerly Covansys (India) Private Limited], बनाम/ Unit 13, Block 2, Sdf Buildings, Vs. Madras Export Processing Zone, Tambaram, Chennai (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaacc1351M Assessee By Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. Shri Abhishek Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement

gaining an immediate understanding: “16. The last ground raised by the assessee challenges disallowance of capitalization of software expenses of Rs. 78,67,240/-. The assessee had debited software expenses of Rs. 9,86,00,000/- which included cost of purchase of licensed software amounting to Rs. 78,67,240/-. The AO found the purchase of software

MOHAR SINGH GOUR,BHOPAL vs. ITO NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is dismissed is non payment of advance

Bench: Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

3 of 10 Mohar Singh Gour ITA Nos. 649 & 650/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2013-14 filed u/s 139 nor u/s 148. The said assessment order is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned assessment order”. 2.4 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned assessment order” prefers first appeal u/s 246A of the Act before Ld. CIT(A) who by the “impugned order” has dismissed

MOHAR SINGH GOUR,BHOPAL vs. ITO NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is dismissed is non payment of advance

Bench: Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

3 of 10 Mohar Singh Gour ITA Nos. 649 & 650/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2013-14 filed u/s 139 nor u/s 148. The said assessment order is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned assessment order”. 2.4 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned assessment order” prefers first appeal u/s 246A of the Act before Ld. CIT(A) who by the “impugned order” has dismissed

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

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

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

3, 4,5,8 and 9:-\nIn these grounds of appeal the assessee has objected to the action of the Assessing Officer in not\nconsidering the revised computation of income filed by the assessee during the course of\nassessment regarding the claim of Rs.644,29,77,492/- made by the assessee in respect of\ncooperative educator expenses although the assessing

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