SMT. APARNA JHAWAR,SENDHWA vs. THE ITO SENDHWA, SENDHWA

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

4. The assessee claimed long-term capital gain exempt under Section 10(38) of the Act at Rs. 23,03,300/- on purchase/sale of shares which is the subject matter before us. The assessee purchased 5000 equity shares of Turbotech Engineering Ltd. from one broker namely Shah Space Manager Pvt. Ltd. at a consideration

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

4. The assessee claimed long-term capital gain exempt under Section 10(38) of the Act at Rs. 23,03,300/- on purchase/sale of shares which is the subject matter before us. The assessee purchased 5000 equity shares of Turbotech Engineering Ltd. from one broker namely Shah Space Manager Pvt. Ltd. at a consideration

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

4. The assessee claimed long-term capital gain exempt under Section 10(38) of the Act at Rs. 23,03,300/- on purchase/sale of shares which is the subject matter before us. The assessee purchased 5000 equity shares of Turbotech Engineering Ltd. from one broker namely Shah Space Manager Pvt. Ltd. at a consideration

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

4 alleging that the order under section 148A(d) was non-speaking was also rejected by CIT(Appeals) on the ground that the Assessing Officer had passed a reasoned order discussing the issue in detail. Grounds Nos. 5 to 11, which were interrelated and pertained to the addition of ₹77,98,016/- on account of long-term capital gains

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

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

4) Sma Jueunaben Sureshbhai Thakkar as the transaction are done by the them, in the bank account of the assessee and they have also failed to give their explanation in this matter, despite of opportunities being given to them to attend by issuing summons and also by the assessee. 6.6 Undoubtedly, there was no assessment framed in the hands

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

4. The respondent, in the course of the proceedings before the Assessing Officer,\nstated that the claim was made through inadvertence. The respondent, however, made a\nclaim of Rs.40,00,000/-under section 43B also being payment of the SEBI fees but made\non 9th May, 2003 1.e. in the assessment year in question. The respondent, in its\nresponse