GOVERDHAN LAL YADAV,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(5), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year : 2015-16 Goverdhan Lal Yadav, Ito-3(5) 112/12, Nanda Nagar, Indore बनाम/ Opp. Anoop Takies, Vs. Indore (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Aaypy9432A Assessee By Shri Venus Rawka, Ar Revenue By Shri Anoop Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 22.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.07.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

46,640. In the Return of Income, the assessee claimed deduction Under Section 54F of the Act. The claim of the deduction Under Section 54F was denied by the Assessing Officer on the reason that the assessee has not deposited the net sale consideration in Capital Gain Scheme Account which is a clear violation provisions of Section

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

46,354/-, being the differential of capital gain Rs. 32,32,461/- determined by AO and the capital gain of Rs. 1,86,107/- already declared by assessee. The comparative figures of working made by assessee and made by AO are given below for a ready reference: As As computed computed by assessee by AO Assessee’s 1/3rd share

KUSUM YADAV,INDORE vs. ITO 1(2), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

2(14)(iii), is\nto stand apart for the purpose of the section, a plea which was ultimately dismissed\nby the Hon'ble Court, but in the instant case, before us, under appeal, it is to be\nnoted that the village Hukmakhedi was itself outside the municipal limits of Indore\n( and was never an area within the Indore municipality

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

46,018/- for Long Term Capital Gain derived from sale of listed company’s share namely M/s Turbo Tech 3 Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7,8,29,30,& 113/Ind/2019 Engineering Ltd not chargeable to tax. The assessee has purchased 5000 shares of M/s Turbo Tech Engineering Pvt Ltd through stock broker M/s Shah Space Manager Pvt. Ltd, Vadodara (Gujarat). After

SMT. RUKMANI 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

46,018/- for Long Term Capital Gain derived from sale of listed company’s share namely M/s Turbo Tech 3 Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7,8,29,30,& 113/Ind/2019 Engineering Ltd not chargeable to tax. The assessee has purchased 5000 shares of M/s Turbo Tech Engineering Pvt Ltd through stock broker M/s Shah Space Manager Pvt. Ltd, Vadodara (Gujarat). After

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

46,018/- for Long Term Capital Gain derived from sale of listed company’s share namely M/s Turbo Tech 3 Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7,8,29,30,& 113/Ind/2019 Engineering Ltd not chargeable to tax. The assessee has purchased 5000 shares of M/s Turbo Tech Engineering Pvt Ltd through stock broker M/s Shah Space Manager Pvt. Ltd, Vadodara (Gujarat). After

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

46,018/- for Long Term Capital Gain derived from sale of listed company’s share namely M/s Turbo Tech 3 Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7,8,29,30,& 113/Ind/2019 Engineering Ltd not chargeable to tax. The assessee has purchased 5000 shares of M/s Turbo Tech Engineering Pvt Ltd through stock broker M/s Shah Space Manager Pvt. Ltd, Vadodara (Gujarat). After

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

46,018/- for Long Term Capital Gain derived from sale of listed company’s share namely M/s Turbo Tech 3 Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7,8,29,30,& 113/Ind/2019 Engineering Ltd not chargeable to tax. The assessee has purchased 5000 shares of M/s Turbo Tech Engineering Pvt Ltd through stock broker M/s Shah Space Manager Pvt. Ltd, Vadodara (Gujarat). After

KESHAV KANUNGO,BHOPAL vs. ACIT2(1) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Keshav Kanungo, Acit, Flat No. A-603, Circle-2(1), Virasha Heights, Bhopal बनाम/ Near Danish Bridge, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Abvpk 2942 F Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 12.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2024

section 54F(1)(b), if the cost of new asset is less than the net consideration of the original asset, then so much of the capital gain as bears to the whole of the capital gain the same proportionate as the cost of new asset bears to the net consideration. In the instant case, the net consideration

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

SHRI VINOD CHOUDHARY,INDORE vs. ITO1 3), INDORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Vinod Choudhary, Ito 1(3) 12, Niranjanpur, Indore Vs. Lasudia, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Akrpv 4892 Q Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah & Soumya Bomb, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.02.2023

2(47) of the Act the Long Term Capital Gain accrued to the assessee in the A.Y. 2011-12. The assessee offered the same in his return of income and claimed exemption under Section 54F & 54B out of the Long Term Capital Gain income. The income arising out of sale of urban agricultural land was correctly shown

SHRI HUKUMCHAND CHOUDHARY ,INDORE vs. ITO (3),INDORE, INDORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

2(47) of the Act the Long Term Capital Gain accrued to the assessee in the A.Y. 2011-12. The assessee offered the same in his return of income and claimed exemption under Section 54F & 54B out of the Long Term Capital Gain income. The income arising out of sale of urban agricultural land was correctly shown

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)

2 to s. 9(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

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)

2 to s. 9(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

ASHISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

capital gains earned during the year were duly disclosed. The case was not picked up for scrutiny. The time limit to issue notice u/s 143(2) for the year had already expired on 30/09/2011. No proceedings were pending against the assessee for this year on the date of search. Hence, it was non- abated year. Therefore, the addition, which could

MANISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

capital gains earned during the year were duly disclosed. The case was not picked up for scrutiny. The time limit to issue notice u/s 143(2) for the year had already expired on 30/09/2011. No proceedings were pending against the assessee for this year on the date of search. Hence, it was non- abated year. Therefore, the addition, which could