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

Appeals are allowed

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

Depreciation Espana SA Vs. ACIT(IT)/DCIT(IT), Bangalore, IT(TA) No. 2657/Bang/2019, 180/Bang/2021 & 817/Bang/2022 order dated 10.08.2023 and the ITAT has categorically held that roaming charges are neither FTS or Royalty. The relevant paras of the order are extracted below: “3. Aggrieved by the final assessment orders passed by the Ld.AO for the years under consideration, assessee filed appeal

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)

Depreciation Espana SA Vs. ACIT(IT)/DCIT(IT), Bangalore, IT(TA) No. 2657/Bang/2019, 180/Bang/2021 & 817/Bang/2022 order dated 10.08.2023 and the ITAT has categorically held that roaming charges are neither FTS or Royalty. The relevant paras of the order are extracted below: “3. Aggrieved by the final assessment orders passed by the Ld.AO for the years under consideration, assessee filed appeal

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)

Depreciation Espana SA Vs. ACIT(IT)/DCIT(IT), Bangalore, IT(TA) No. 2657/Bang/2019, 180/Bang/2021 & 817/Bang/2022 order dated 10.08.2023 and the ITAT has categorically held that roaming charges are neither FTS or Royalty. The relevant paras of the order are extracted below: “3. Aggrieved by the final assessment orders passed by the Ld.AO for the years under consideration, assessee filed appeal

SHRI HUMAD JAIN SAKH SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT,INDORE vs. ITO 2(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for\nthe assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections\n148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year):\nXXX\nExplanation 3. (subsequently introduced through Finance (No. 2)\nAct, 2009 with retrospective effect from 01.04.1989) - For the\npurpose of assessment or reassessment under this section

GOPAL MUWEL,MANAWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshigopal Muwel, Ito बनाम/ Morad, Manawar, Dhar Vs. Dhar (Pan: Caapm6256Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Lucky Singhal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 06.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

depreciation of Rs. 5,97,835/-, which is allowable in terms of section 56(2)(ii) & 56(2)(ii)r.w.s. 57(ii) of the Act. The appellant cannot be denied deduction of Rs. 34,91,240/-, therefore, in the facts emanating from the case. When an expenditure is claimed, it must be substantiated by an assessee, on being asked

ACIT 5 (1), BHOPAL vs. M/S VINDHYA SOLVENT PVT. LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy& Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

depreciation; any amount representing provision for taxation, other than amount of tax paid as deduction or collection at source or as advance tax payment as reduced by the amount of tax claimed as refund under the Income- tax Act, to the extent of the excess over the tax payable with reference to the book profits in accordance with

DCIT KHANDWA, KHANDWA vs. M/S RAJRAJESHWAR COTTON CORPORATION, SENDHWA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal as well as Assessee’s Cross-

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) & C.O. No. 9/Ind/2020 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit M/S Raj Rajeshwar Cotton Khandwa Corporation, बनाम/ Warla Road, Sendhwa, Vs. District - Khandwa (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aagfr 6243 N Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.10.2022

195 (Born) (198) c. ICICI Life Insurance Co Ltd (2010) 325 ITR 471 [Born] d. Aventis Pharma Ltd. vs. ACIT (2010) 323 ITR 570 (Bom)(577) e. Nirmal Bang Securities (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT (2016) 382 ITR 93(Bom)(HC) f. Aryan Arcade Ltd vs Den (2017) 4.14 During the assessment proceedings, if new facts, material or information comes

SANJEEV JHA,SARWA SAMPAN NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER NFAC, INDORE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2019-20 Sanjeev Jha, Income-Tax Officer, 195, Sarwa Sampan Nfac, Nagar, Delhi बनाम/ Kanadia Road, Vs. Near Columbia Convent, Indore. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aeypj7626M Assessee By Shri H.N.Joshi, Ar Revenue By Shri K. Bala Murali Krishna, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2024

195, Sarwa Sampan NFAC, Nagar, Delhi बनाम/ Kanadia Road, Vs. Near Columbia Convent, Indore. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) PAN: AEYPJ7626M Assessee by Shri H.N.Joshi, AR Revenue by Shri K. Bala Murali Krishna, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 21.08.2024 Date of Pronouncement 30.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 20.02.2024 passed by learned