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

M/S. S.R. FERRO ALLOYS,JHABUA vs. THE PCIT, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanis.R. Ferro Alloys Pr. Cit, Central 9, Siddheswar Colony Bhopal Vs. Jhabua (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Abhfs7377Q Appellant By Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.11.2023

via speed post and sent on registered e-mail.” 8.1 Thus, the Pr. CIT has observed that the AO could have called for supporting documents for verification of the lender and his creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transaction involved while passing assessment order. At the outset, we note that the AO has issued notice u/s 142(1) dated 21st

ACIT-1(1), INDORE vs. KRITI NUTRIENTS LIMITED, INDORE

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical\npurposes

via various notices, in spite of receiving all the notices\ntimely. All such possible questions, which come to the mind of the\nundersigned at this stage, can be listed as under:\nQuestion-1 Were the books of account not fully prepared and ready for\nthe production during the assessment proceedings?\nQuestion-2 If the answer to the above question

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

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

VIA : Rs.6,47,46,882/-). The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny by issuing notice u/s 143(2). After selecting the case for scrutiny, the AO conducted a detailed and exhaustive scrutiny by issuing questionnaires dated 19/08/2013, 29/07/2014, 01/10/2014 and requiring information during the assessment proceedings, and requiring the assessee to furnish various details regarding the affairs, income, expenses

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

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

VIA : Rs.6,47,46,882/-). The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny by issuing notice u/s 143(2). After selecting the case for scrutiny, the AO conducted a detailed and exhaustive scrutiny by issuing questionnaires dated 19/08/2013, 29/07/2014, 01/10/2014 and requiring information during the assessment proceedings, and requiring the assessee to furnish various details regarding the affairs, income, expenses

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

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

VIA : Rs.6,47,46,882/-). The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny by issuing notice u/s 143(2). After selecting the case for scrutiny, the AO conducted a detailed and exhaustive scrutiny by issuing questionnaires dated 19/08/2013, 29/07/2014, 01/10/2014 and requiring information during the assessment proceedings, and requiring the assessee to furnish various details regarding the affairs, income, expenses

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

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

VIA : Rs.6,47,46,882/-). The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny by issuing notice u/s 143(2). After selecting the case for scrutiny, the AO conducted a detailed and exhaustive scrutiny by issuing questionnaires dated 19/08/2013, 29/07/2014, 01/10/2014 and requiring information during the assessment proceedings, and requiring the assessee to furnish various details regarding the affairs, income, expenses

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

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

VIA : Rs.6,47,46,882/-). The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny by issuing notice u/s 143(2). After selecting the case for scrutiny, the AO conducted a detailed and exhaustive scrutiny by issuing questionnaires dated 19/08/2013, 29/07/2014, 01/10/2014 and requiring information during the assessment proceedings, and requiring the assessee to furnish various details regarding the affairs, income, expenses

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

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI MOHANLAL CHUGH, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

depreciation as the assessee carried out the activities of development of project as an investor and not as a builder. The Ld. CIT(A) further stated that 31 Mohanlal Chugh & others without bringing any corroborative evidence on record the profit of the project cannot be estimated @30%. The Ld. CIT(A) relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S. CHUGH REALTY, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

depreciation as the assessee carried out the activities of development of project as an investor and not as a builder. The Ld. CIT(A) further stated that 31 Mohanlal Chugh & others without bringing any corroborative evidence on record the profit of the project cannot be estimated @30%. The Ld. CIT(A) relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI NITESH CHUGH, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

depreciation as the assessee carried out the activities of development of project as an investor and not as a builder. The Ld. CIT(A) further stated that 31 Mohanlal Chugh & others without bringing any corroborative evidence on record the profit of the project cannot be estimated @30%. The Ld. CIT(A) relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court