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

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 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 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

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

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

Appeal is allowed

195 Taxman 117 (Bombay):\n“Admit. During the course of the hearing of these appeals by the Revenue u/s\n260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, submissions have been urged before the\nCourt confined to the following substantial question of law:\n2. \"Where upon the issuance of a notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax\nAct, 1961 read with Section

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

6 - 1.5. The Appellant is engaged in the business of trading of Soya doc. Being a trading company, purchase of land or plant and machinery is not necessarily required to undertake trading activities, Your Honour will appreciate that expenditure on land / plant and machinery would usually be required in a manufacturing business. As regards the allegation of the learned

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

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

6 of 17 M/s Raj Rajeshwar Cotton Corporation ITA No.573/Ind/2019 & CO 9/Ind/2020 Assessment year 2011-12 order dated 24.09.2015. (iv) In the case of PCIT vs Manzil Dinesh Kumar Shah (2018) 95 Taxmann.com 46 (Guj) (HC), the court held that "even the assessment which is completed u/s 143(1) cannot be reopened without proper 'reason to believe'. If the reasons