SUBHASH CHANDRA AGRAWAL,VIDISHA vs. ITO, VIDISHA, VIDISHA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2019-20 Subhash Chandra Ito, Agrawal, Vidisha बनाम/ Galla Mandi, Vs. Vidisha (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Afrpa8769A Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri Jaideep Jain, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27/02/2026

capital gain in terms with sub-section (3) of section 50C. Therefore, sub- section (1) to section 50C cannot be considered in isolation. By making an adjustment of the nature contemplated under sub-section (1) to section 50C, that too, by CPC, the Department takes away a valuable statutory right given to the assessee to object to the value determined

RAMKUNWAR PATIDAR,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 2 (4), BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Ramkunwar Patidar, Income-Tax Officer, Village Salliya, 2(4), बनाम/ Post Bawadia Kalan, Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Blxpp4909C Assessee By Shri S.S.Solanki, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22.02.2024

36: 1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. AO has made addition of Rs. 30,46,354/- as income from capital gains in the hands of appellant which is erroneous and should be quashed. Page 1 of 11 Shri Ramkunwar Patidar, Bhopal vs. ITO, 2(4), Bhopal ITA No. 208/Ind/2022

M/S TRUBA EDUCATION SOCIETY ,BHOPAL vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

capital expenditure which otherwise is not an allowable\nexpenditure would be considered as application in the event of an assessee\ntrust enjoying the benefits of the registration. Under the circumstances, the law\nthat should apply is with reference to the year of default. He submitted that\nthe Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) should have acted

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

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)

1)(vii) would also have to be construed as involving a human element • The expression 'technical service' would have reference to only technical service rendered by a human. Page 36 of 65 ITA No. 415/Ind/2014 & 265/Ind/2018 – AY 2010-11 M/s Vodafone Idea Ltd. (Formerly M/s Idea Cellular Ltd.) • MTNL or other companies do not provide any assistance to the assessee

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)

1)(vii) would also have to be construed as involving a human element • The expression 'technical service' would have reference to only technical service rendered by a human. Page 36 of 65 ITA No. 415/Ind/2014 & 265/Ind/2018 – AY 2010-11 M/s Vodafone Idea Ltd. (Formerly M/s Idea Cellular Ltd.) • MTNL or other companies do not provide any assistance to the assessee

SADHU RAM BALANI,INDORE vs. ITO-5(1), INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisadhu Ram Balani Ito-5(1) Flat No.B-503, Moti Mahal Indore Apartment 28-A, Sector-C Vs. Scheme No.71, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Abspb5367L Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 04.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2024

1 of the SCN, we would like to state that though your goodself has doubted the Page 21 of 51 ITANo.470/Ind/2023 Sadhuram Balani genuineness of the transactions on the basis of information received, it appears from the SCN that your goodself is not doubting the computation part of the Capital Gain transaction and itsexemption u/s 10(38) read with Section

SMT. PUSHPA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. ITO WARD 5(2), INDORE, AAYKAR BHAWAN, OPPOSITE WHITE CHURCH, RESIDENCY AREA, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

36-39 of Paper Book; Para No. 1(b) of reply letter dated 05.11.2014 filed by assessee placed at Page No. 43-46 of Paper-Book; Second Para of reply letter filed by assessee placed at Page No. 48 of Paper-Book]. Further, vide\nreply-letter placed at Page No. 48 of Paper-Book, the assessee also filed 2 certificates

DILIP CHANDRASENRO MAHADIK,INDORE vs. THE PR CIT -2 INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Dilip Chandrasenrao Pr.Cit-2, Mahadik, Indore. बनाम/ 479, Kalani Nagar, Vs. Indore (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Abwpm3141M Assessee By S/Shri Rajnish Vohra, Chetan Khandelwal & Nitesh Dawira, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.08.2023

1,23,00,000 Less: Indexed Cost 24,57,600 F.Y.1981-82 240000/100*1024 24,57,600 98,42,400 Deduction u/s 54 98,42,400 0 Investment in House Property u/s 54 Rs. 36,50,051/- Amount deposited in Capital Gains Accounts Scheme u/s 54 Rs. 62,00,000/- Page 10 of 12 Dilip Chandrasenrao Mahadik Assessment year

PRADEEP PINJANI,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(2), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed as mentioned above

36\n(Appeal Memo):\n\nITA No. 556/Ind/2024 – AY 2016-17\n\nPradeep Pinjani\n\n“1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was\nnot justified to confirm the addition made by Id. AO by rejecting, without giving\nproper opportunity for production/verification of evidences, of the cost of\nimprovement made

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

iii) Date on which the Competent Officer issued show-cause notice to assessee u/s 274 – 29.10.2018 (iv) Date on which the penalty-orders were passed by Competent Officer – 28.03.2019 9. Then, Ld. AR referred the very same provision of section 275(1)(c) as analysed by Ld. CIT(A), re-produced in earlier para. Ld. AR explained that there

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

iii) Date on which the Competent Officer issued show-cause notice to assessee u/s 274 – 29.10.2018 (iv) Date on which the penalty-orders were passed by Competent Officer – 28.03.2019 9. Then, Ld. AR referred the very same provision of section 275(1)(c) as analysed by Ld. CIT(A), re-produced in earlier para. Ld. AR explained that there

MOHANLAL KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4(1), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

1) The Genuineness of transaction was sought to be proved before the Revenue with help of following evidences:- (i) Statement of Long Term Capital Gain. Debit note for purchase of shares of Turbo Tech (ii) Engineering Limited. (iii) Physical Share Transfer form evidencing shares of Turbo Tech Engineering Limited in assesse’s name. 5 Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7

RADHESHYAM KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ACIT4(1), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

1) The Genuineness of transaction was sought to be proved before the Revenue with help of following evidences:- (i) Statement of Long Term Capital Gain. Debit note for purchase of shares of Turbo Tech (ii) Engineering Limited. (iii) Physical Share Transfer form evidencing shares of Turbo Tech Engineering Limited in assesse’s name. 5 Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7

SMT. SANDHYA KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ITO 4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

1) The Genuineness of transaction was sought to be proved before the Revenue with help of following evidences:- (i) Statement of Long Term Capital Gain. Debit note for purchase of shares of Turbo Tech (ii) Engineering Limited. (iii) Physical Share Transfer form evidencing shares of Turbo Tech Engineering Limited in assesse’s name. 5 Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7

SHRI SURESH KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4(1), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

1) The Genuineness of transaction was sought to be proved before the Revenue with help of following evidences:- (i) Statement of Long Term Capital Gain. Debit note for purchase of shares of Turbo Tech (ii) Engineering Limited. (iii) Physical Share Transfer form evidencing shares of Turbo Tech Engineering Limited in assesse’s name. 5 Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7