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

Appeals are allowed

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

V to deal both points respectively. 8. The expression “fee for technical services” is defined in Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii) as under: “Explanation 2. - For the purposes of this clause, “fees for technical services” means any consideration (including any lump sum consideration) for the rendering of any managerial, technical or consultancy services (including the provision of services

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)

V to deal both points respectively. 8. The expression “fee for technical services” is defined in Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii) as under: “Explanation 2. - For the purposes of this clause, “fees for technical services” means any consideration (including any lump sum consideration) for the rendering of any managerial, technical or consultancy services (including the provision of services

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)

V to deal both points respectively. 8. The expression “fee for technical services” is defined in Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii) as under: “Explanation 2. - For the purposes of this clause, “fees for technical services” means any consideration (including any lump sum consideration) for the rendering of any managerial, technical or consultancy services (including the provision of services

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshishri Vimal Todi, Additional Commissioner बनाम/ 501, Darshan Residency, Of Income-Tax, Vs. 104-105, Anand Bazar, Indore Indore

9 of 33 Shri Vimal Todi ITA Nos. 188/Ind/2024 - AY 2012-13 reference in the said letter of summons issued under section 131 on 01.04.2015 by the DDIT Investigation, Jaipur. The DDIT Jaipur vide letter dated 23.10.2015 informed the ACIT/AO about the contravention of provisions of section 269SS of the IT Act by the assessee and appropriate action under

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

v) disallowance of deduction claimed under section 10AA or under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading "C.--Deductions in respect of certain incomes", if the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139; Page 4 of 10 Subhash Chandra Agrawal ITA No. 354/Ind/2025 – AY 2019-20 (vi) addition

NILIMA KOTHARI,INDORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSTT. CENTRE, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Manish Boradsmt. Neelima Kothari, Income Tax Officer, 601, N.R.K. Villas, Delhi Vs. 22/2 Manoramaganj, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adnpk7832J Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.09.2024

9,500 equity shares were sold in Oct/Nov 2015 as per date-wise details stated on Page 40/41 of assessment order. These facts proved beyond doubt that the appellant was not involved in any kind of price manipulation so as to earn long term capital gain, Genuineness of purchase and sale of the shares cannot be doubted just

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

9 of the impugned order, the\nCommissioner records that the violation of section 11 & 13 of the Act would\nresult in forfeiture of exemption not only for the year in which such\ntransactions occur but also for the years when such arrangement continues to\nbe in force. In our considered opinion, such an approach of the Commissioner is\nquiet misdirected

KANHAIYA LAL PANCHAL,RATLAM vs. BPL-W-(91)(95), RATLAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2024-25 Kanhaiya Lal Panchal, Bpl-W-(91)(95) 1, Jadwasa Kala, बनाम/ Ratlam Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aqrpp0055D Assessee By Shri Kaide Kangsawala, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026

1), the rebate under section 87A shall be allowed from the income-tax on the total income as reduced by tax payable on such capital gains. 5.11 The absence of a corresponding clause in section 111A is legally significant and supports the principle that – when the legislature intended to deny rebate in respect of special income (as in section 112A

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

9 of 29 STI India Ltd. ITA Nos.11, 850, 12, 13/Ind/2019 & 22, 784, 23 & 24/Ind/2019 (A.Y.2012-13 to 2015-16) (a) CIT Vs. Cochin Co. (P) Ltd. (1990) 184 ITR 230 (Kerala HC): Held: “3. We heard counsel. The short question that arises for consideration is whether, on the facts of this case, section 43(1) of the Income

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

9 of 29 STI India Ltd. ITA Nos.11, 850, 12, 13/Ind/2019 & 22, 784, 23 & 24/Ind/2019 (A.Y.2012-13 to 2015-16) (a) CIT Vs. Cochin Co. (P) Ltd. (1990) 184 ITR 230 (Kerala HC): Held: “3. We heard counsel. The short question that arises for consideration is whether, on the facts of this case, section 43(1) of the Income

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

9 of 29 STI India Ltd. ITA Nos.11, 850, 12, 13/Ind/2019 & 22, 784, 23 & 24/Ind/2019 (A.Y.2012-13 to 2015-16) (a) CIT Vs. Cochin Co. (P) Ltd. (1990) 184 ITR 230 (Kerala HC): Held: “3. We heard counsel. The short question that arises for consideration is whether, on the facts of this case, section 43(1) of the Income

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

9 of 29 STI India Ltd. ITA Nos.11, 850, 12, 13/Ind/2019 & 22, 784, 23 & 24/Ind/2019 (A.Y.2012-13 to 2015-16) (a) CIT Vs. Cochin Co. (P) Ltd. (1990) 184 ITR 230 (Kerala HC): Held: “3. We heard counsel. The short question that arises for consideration is whether, on the facts of this case, section 43(1) of the Income

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

9 of 29 STI India Ltd. ITA Nos.11, 850, 12, 13/Ind/2019 & 22, 784, 23 & 24/Ind/2019 (A.Y.2012-13 to 2015-16) (a) CIT Vs. Cochin Co. (P) Ltd. (1990) 184 ITR 230 (Kerala HC): Held: “3. We heard counsel. The short question that arises for consideration is whether, on the facts of this case, section 43(1) of the Income

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

9 of 29 STI India Ltd. ITA Nos.11, 850, 12, 13/Ind/2019 & 22, 784, 23 & 24/Ind/2019 (A.Y.2012-13 to 2015-16) (a) CIT Vs. Cochin Co. (P) Ltd. (1990) 184 ITR 230 (Kerala HC): Held: “3. We heard counsel. The short question that arises for consideration is whether, on the facts of this case, section 43(1) of the Income

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

9 of 29 STI India Ltd. ITA Nos.11, 850, 12, 13/Ind/2019 & 22, 784, 23 & 24/Ind/2019 (A.Y.2012-13 to 2015-16) (a) CIT Vs. Cochin Co. (P) Ltd. (1990) 184 ITR 230 (Kerala HC): Held: “3. We heard counsel. The short question that arises for consideration is whether, on the facts of this case, section 43(1) of the Income

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

9 of 29 STI India Ltd. ITA Nos.11, 850, 12, 13/Ind/2019 & 22, 784, 23 & 24/Ind/2019 (A.Y.2012-13 to 2015-16) (a) CIT Vs. Cochin Co. (P) Ltd. (1990) 184 ITR 230 (Kerala HC): Held: “3. We heard counsel. The short question that arises for consideration is whether, on the facts of this case, section 43(1) of the Income

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

v. Renu Aggarwal reported in [2023] 153 taxmann.com 579 (SC) 3.1 Ld. AR has submitted that the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the recent judgments dated 30th April 2024 in case of CCIT vs. Shri Nilesh Jain HUF and other bunch of appeals in ITANo.56 of 2021 has considered an identical issue of long term capital gain arising from

VISHAL GIFT CENTRE - LLP,INDORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

gain\narising therefrom was not taxable.\n5. The first issue raised in Ground No. 1 which calls for our\nadjudication is whether or not the impugned land sold by assessee was\nsituated within the prescribed area/distance of section 2(14)(iii)(a)/(b).\n6. We have heard learned Representatives of both sides on this issue and\ncarefully perused the orders