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

Appeals are allowed

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

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 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)

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

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

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

capital receipt.” 5.Director of Income-tax (Exemption) vs. Keshav Social and Charitable Foundation (2005) 278 ITR 152 (Delhi High Court) “Exemption – Charitable purpose – Trust – Donations received in previous year – Assessee only required to show donations were voluntary – More than 75% of income used for charitable purposes in accordance with objects – Assessee duly registered under section 12A – list of bonors submitted

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

capital receipt.” 5.Director of Income-tax (Exemption) vs. Keshav Social and Charitable Foundation (2005) 278 ITR 152 (Delhi High Court) “Exemption – Charitable purpose – Trust – Donations received in previous year – Assessee only required to show donations were voluntary – More than 75% of income used for charitable purposes in accordance with objects – Assessee duly registered under section 12A – list of bonors submitted

M/S ESSARGEE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT-1 (1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assesse for A

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

366 ITR 122 and submitted that the Hon’ble High Court has observed that paramount consideration of s.40A(3) is to curb and reduce the possibilities of black money transactions when neither the genuineness of the payment nor the identity of the payee were in dispute and the payments were made in the compelling circumstances and on account of peculiar

M/S ESSARGEE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT- 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assesse for A

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

366 ITR 122 and submitted that the Hon’ble High Court has observed that paramount consideration of s.40A(3) is to curb and reduce the possibilities of black money transactions when neither the genuineness of the payment nor the identity of the payee were in dispute and the payments were made in the compelling circumstances and on account of peculiar

M/S ESSARGEE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT- 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assesse for A

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

366 ITR 122 and submitted that the Hon’ble High Court has observed that paramount consideration of s.40A(3) is to curb and reduce the possibilities of black money transactions when neither the genuineness of the payment nor the identity of the payee were in dispute and the payments were made in the compelling circumstances and on account of peculiar

M/S ESSARGEE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT- 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assesse for A

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

366 ITR 122 and submitted that the Hon’ble High Court has observed that paramount consideration of s.40A(3) is to curb and reduce the possibilities of black money transactions when neither the genuineness of the payment nor the identity of the payee were in dispute and the payments were made in the compelling circumstances and on account of peculiar

M/S ESSARGEE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT- 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assesse for A

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

366 ITR 122 and submitted that the Hon’ble High Court has observed that paramount consideration of s.40A(3) is to curb and reduce the possibilities of black money transactions when neither the genuineness of the payment nor the identity of the payee were in dispute and the payments were made in the compelling circumstances and on account of peculiar

M/S M.P. MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

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

366 ITR 85 (Guj.) However, thereafter this issue has been considered and decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of ACIT(Exemption) vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority 449 ITR 1. 3.1. Ld. Sr. counsel has submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has discussed this issue thoroughly and observed that certain kind of receipt which GPU charities, typically

M.P.MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

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

366 ITR 85 (Guj.) However, thereafter this issue has been considered and decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of ACIT(Exemption) vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority 449 ITR 1. 3.1. Ld. Sr. counsel has submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has discussed this issue thoroughly and observed that certain kind of receipt which GPU charities, typically

M.P.MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

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

366 ITR 85 (Guj.) However, thereafter this issue has been considered and decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of ACIT(Exemption) vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority 449 ITR 1. 3.1. Ld. Sr. counsel has submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has discussed this issue thoroughly and observed that certain kind of receipt which GPU charities, typically

M.P.MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

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

366 ITR 85 (Guj.) However, thereafter this issue has been considered and decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of ACIT(Exemption) vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority 449 ITR 1. 3.1. Ld. Sr. counsel has submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has discussed this issue thoroughly and observed that certain kind of receipt which GPU charities, typically

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

capital assets. The waiver of loan is not equivalent to reimbursement or a grant or a subsidy. Hence, it is held that the waiver does not fall within the ambit of explanation (10) to section 43(1) or proviso thereof. Therefore, following the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT Vs. Kochin

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

capital assets. The waiver of loan is not equivalent to reimbursement or a grant or a subsidy. Hence, it is held that the waiver does not fall within the ambit of explanation (10) to section 43(1) or proviso thereof. Therefore, following the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT Vs. Kochin

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

capital assets. The waiver of loan is not equivalent to reimbursement or a grant or a subsidy. Hence, it is held that the waiver does not fall within the ambit of explanation (10) to section 43(1) or proviso thereof. Therefore, following the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT Vs. Kochin

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

capital assets. The waiver of loan is not equivalent to reimbursement or a grant or a subsidy. Hence, it is held that the waiver does not fall within the ambit of explanation (10) to section 43(1) or proviso thereof. Therefore, following the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT Vs. Kochin