DECENT INDUSTRIES P. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(2), BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani(Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Decent Industries Ito-1(2), Private Ltd, Bhopal 5Th Floor, Corporate Park, बनाम/ Db City Area Hills, Vs. Opp. M.P. Nagar Zone I, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaeca6271G Assessee By Ms. Shilpa Gupta & Shri N.K. Gupta Revenue By Shri V.K. Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 04.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.08.2024

4(iii) of assessment-order, the AO has himself noted that before Investigation Wing, “A” and “J” stated in their written-submissions that they liquidated their old investments held in earlier years and the proceeds was utilised for making investment in assessee-company. Thus, there is a clear-cut explanation by “A” and “J” made to authorities in favour

THE ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. M/S. SUNDERDEEP CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result all the grounds raised by the Revenue are

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2012-13

4 of the assessment order the advances received for flat booking as ‘Name of Creditors’. The amount reflected in the Balance Sheet relates to advances for booking of flats and these parties are not creditors. Ld. AO treated these advances received from various customers for flat booking as trading liability as per the provisions of section

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 139 etc., or by reason of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year. In the present case, the question of making of a return is not in issue and the only question is with regard to the second portion of the proviso

THE AIT,ENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SURYA INFRAVENTURE P LTD, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 139 etc., or by reason of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year. In the present case, the question of making of a return is not in issue and the only question is with regard to the second portion of the proviso

THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 139 etc., or by reason of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year. In the present case, the question of making of a return is not in issue and the only question is with regard to the second portion of the proviso

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

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)

Section 194J read with clause (b) of the Explanation to Section 194J of the Income Tax Act, 1961, [`Act', for short] which, inter alia, states that "fees for technical services" shall have the same meaning as contained in Explanation 2 to clause (vii) of Section 9(1) of the Act. Right from 1979 various judgments

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)

Section 194J read with clause (b) of the Explanation to Section 194J of the Income Tax Act, 1961, [`Act', for short] which, inter alia, states that "fees for technical services" shall have the same meaning as contained in Explanation 2 to clause (vii) of Section 9(1) of the Act. Right from 1979 various judgments

M/S RADHISHWARI DEVLOPERS P LTD,INDORE vs. PR CIT -2 INDORE, INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2013-14 M/S. Radhishwari Developers P. Ltd. (Now Known As R.C. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. ) Indore : Appellant Pan :Aafcr1916A V/S Pr. Cito-2 : Respondent Indore Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema Sr. Adv. With Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar Advs. Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 20.07.2021

172 TTJ 721 (KOL) has..........virtually the whole law on 263. It has answered following questions most clarity; Q. Whether the enquiry conducted by the Assessing Officer in such cases can be as a proper enquriy ? A. Though the Assessing Officer issued notices under section 133(6) but it failed to comprehend the rationale or logic behind

ANIL DHAKAD,INDORE vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-I, LOCATION

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

172 (Trib. Indore) ii.Pipush Kumar O. Desai vs. CIT 247 ITR 568 (Guj.) iii. DCIT vs. Tapesh Tyagi (ITAT, Delhi)-ITA No.1344/Del/2021 order dt. 27.10.2023 iv. Jayashri Shrikant Deshmukh vs. ACIT (ITAT, Pune) ITANo.776/Pun/2022 v.Ram Kishan vs. ITO in ITANo.1909/Del/2020 (ITAT, Delhi) vi. D.N. Singh vs. CIT (2023) 454 ITR 595 (SC) vii. CIT vs. Mother India Refrigeration Industries

ANIL DHAKAD,INDORE vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-I, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

172 (Trib. Indore) ii.Pipush Kumar O. Desai vs. CIT 247 ITR 568 (Guj.) iii. DCIT vs. Tapesh Tyagi (ITAT, Delhi)-ITA No.1344/Del/2021 order dt. 27.10.2023 iv. Jayashri Shrikant Deshmukh vs. ACIT (ITAT, Pune) ITANo.776/Pun/2022 v.Ram Kishan vs. ITO in ITANo.1909/Del/2020 (ITAT, Delhi) vi. D.N. Singh vs. CIT (2023) 454 ITR 595 (SC) vii. CIT vs. Mother India Refrigeration Industries

ANIL DHAKAD,INDORE vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-I, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

172 (Trib. Indore) ii.Pipush Kumar O. Desai vs. CIT 247 ITR 568 (Guj.) iii. DCIT vs. Tapesh Tyagi (ITAT, Delhi)-ITA No.1344/Del/2021 order dt. 27.10.2023 iv. Jayashri Shrikant Deshmukh vs. ACIT (ITAT, Pune) ITANo.776/Pun/2022 v.Ram Kishan vs. ITO in ITANo.1909/Del/2020 (ITAT, Delhi) vi. D.N. Singh vs. CIT (2023) 454 ITR 595 (SC) vii. CIT vs. Mother India Refrigeration Industries

ANIL DHAKAD,INDORE vs. AASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-I, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

172 (Trib. Indore) ii.Pipush Kumar O. Desai vs. CIT 247 ITR 568 (Guj.) iii. DCIT vs. Tapesh Tyagi (ITAT, Delhi)-ITA No.1344/Del/2021 order dt. 27.10.2023 iv. Jayashri Shrikant Deshmukh vs. ACIT (ITAT, Pune) ITANo.776/Pun/2022 v.Ram Kishan vs. ITO in ITANo.1909/Del/2020 (ITAT, Delhi) vi. D.N. Singh vs. CIT (2023) 454 ITR 595 (SC) vii. CIT vs. Mother India Refrigeration Industries

M/S. VPA CIVILCON (P) LTD.,INDORE vs. PR. CIT-2, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & T.R. Senthil Kumar

172 ITR 696) in which it has been held that there was no ground for doubt in the transaction. Similar view has been taken by Honourable Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mrs Sunita Bachani (184 ITR 121, 123). Reference is further invited to Honourable Delhi High Court Decision in case of CIT vs. Stellar Investments

JYOTI GOYAL,BHOPAL vs. DCIT-1(1), BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed as mentioned above

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2012-13 Jyoti Goyal, Dcit, 18, Shyamla Hills, 1(1), बनाम/ Bhopal Bhopal Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Abbpg3493P Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.05.2024

172 ITR 250 (S.C.), wherein it was stated that once a person is in possession of the stated money, the burden of proof is on him to show he is not the owner. The Hon'ble Court laid down as under :- “6….. There is a contention was raised that the provision in section 110 where a person was found

M/S LIFE CARE INTERNATIONAL,INDORE vs. JCIT-3, INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

68 of the Act for Rs.2.70 cr. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the alleged loan of Rs.2.70 cr was taken from following five companies: 6 Life Care International ITA No.335 to 337/Ind/2018 S.No Name of the Loan creditors PA No Amount [Rs ] 1 Advantage Dealtrade P Limited AAICA7805Q 50,00,000 2 Axiom Commodeal P Limited AAICA5208K