ASIAN BUSINESS CONECTION PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. DCIT - 1(1) , BHOPAL

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2015-16 M/S. Asian Business Dcit-1(1), Connections Private Ltd, Vs. Bhopal Fm-18, Man Sarovar Complex, 7No. Stop, Shivaji Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aaica1206D

19 of 2017 to contend that contributions given for commercial purpose fall outside preview of section 2(22)(e). The aforesaid circular is reproduced below:- Section 2(22) clause (e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) provides that "dividend" includes any payment by a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested

ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), UJJAIN vs. A ONE ENCLAVE, UJJAIN

In the result, grounds taken by Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2012-13 Acit, Circle-1(1), V/S M/S. A One Enclave, Ujjain 3687/1, Hariphatak Road, Ujjain

68 or section 69 or section 69A or section 69B or section 69C or section 69D." 10. In light of above, given the fact that the AO has invoked the provisions of section 11BBE in the instant case, the provisions of sub-section (2) to section 11BBE are equally applicable. The amendment

RAJESH BAJAJ,BURHANPUR vs. THE ACIT , KHANDWA

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Rajesh Kumar Bajaj Acit 13, Rajesh Industries, Vs. Khandwa Industrial Estate Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Ahnpb0036F Appellant By Shri S.S. Sheetal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashishporwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 08.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2020 O R D E R

2(24) of the Act for which the assessee is unable to offer any explanation, then such higher rate of tax i.e. 60% is to be levied u/s 115BBE of the Act. 17. As far as the judgments referred and relied by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee is concerned in the case of Sanjay Bairathi Gems Limited (supra

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), INDORE, INDORE vs. DIVINE INFRACREATION AND TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly quash the assessment-order made by AO.\nThe assessee's ground is allowed

68 of the I.T. Act,\n1961, when it was evident that the entire share application money including\nshare premium money was received by the assessee company in A.Y. 2010-11\nnot in A.Y. 2011-12.\"\n6.\nWe have heard the learned Representatives of both sides and perused\nthe impugned order of CIT(A) re-produced above. After a careful\nconsideration

M/S. ARIHANT CHERITABLE TRUST,INDORE vs. THE ITO (TDS)-1, INDORE

In the result, we find no force in the ground of the Revenue, hence dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2015-16

68-76] “11. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the record. We have also carefully perused the case law relied upon by the learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the assessee. In the case of CIT vs Bharti Cellular Ltd. (2009) 319 ITR 139 (Del) the Hon’ble Delhi High Court observed that the expression ‘technical services

SARSWATI VIDHYA PRATISHTHAN M.P ,BHUPAL vs. THE ACIT 2(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisarswati Vidhya Pratishthan Dcit (E) M.P. Bhopal Vs. 01, Harshwardhan Nagar Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aadas0899M Assessee By Shri Santosh Deshmukh & Shri Parth Jhawar, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2023

68 to 87 of the ITA No. 278/Kol/2018 M.s. Credai Bengal, AY 2012-13 Paper Book in ITA No. 381/Kol/2016 passed on 30.09.2016. The relevant extracts of the decision is reproduced below: 8.1 Now in the light of above words, we have to examine as to whether the order of the ld. CIT is a valid order in the light

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

DCIT (CENTRAL)-2, INDORE vs. PUNJAB RETAIL (P) LTD., INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

19 ITJ 276 (Trib- Indore) has held that "Substantive law shall be understood to be applicable prospectively unless made specifically retrospective. Thus, it is settled position of law that provision of section 115BBE of the Act is clearly not applicable in case of business income which is taxed under section 28 to 44 of the Income

DCIT,CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI KRIHNA KUMAR VERMA, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI (Accountant Member)

2. The sole ground raised by the Revenue which readsasfollows: “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in law in allowing the assessee’s appeal on the chargeability of tax as per normal rates instead of the amended provisions of section 115BBE of the Act applicable w.e.f.1.04.2017 relevant

M/S SUPREMO INDIA LTD ,INDORE vs. THE AIT CENTRAL 3, INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Supremo India Pvt. Ltd. Acit Central-3 400/2, Halka Patwari No.52 Indore Vs. Badiakeema Dudhiya, B.O. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcs 9822 C Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07.06.2023

2. ACIT vs. Shri Anoop Neema in ITANo.05/Ind/2020 ITAT, Indore 3. DCIT vs. Shri Krishna Kumar Verma in ITANo.185/Ind/2020, ITAT, Indore 4.DCIT vs. M/s. Punjab Retail Pvt. Ltd. ITANo.677/Ind/2019 ITAT, Indore 5.Gandhir Ram vs. Pr. CIT ITANo.121/Chd/2021, ITAT, Chandigarh 6. ACIT vs. M/s Signature Builders IT(SS) ANo.184 to 186/Ind/2018, ITAT, Indore 4. On the other hand

M/S NIKHIL ESTATE P LTD,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE (3) INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Nikhil Estate Pvt. Ltd. Acit (Central)-3 M-102, Mezzanine, Floor, Indore Dhan Trident, P. No.B-3 Pu- Vs. 4, Sch. No.54, Vijay Nagar Square, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcn 8056 D Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.06.2023

2,01,66,080/- Wव^ वष$ 2018-19 क\ "नय]मत आय के अलावा "यवसाय से आय के dप मV घोWषत क\ गयी िजस पर आयकर "ावधानO के अनुसार कर का भुगतान करने का वचन देता हूँ। उ?त बयान मेरे `वारा पूण$ होशहवास मV सोच समझकर nबना दबाव मV 6दये गये है िज"हे पढ़कर समझकर हNता#र कर

KUSUM YADAV,INDORE vs. ITO 1(2), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

2(14)(iii), is\nto stand apart for the purpose of the section, a plea which was ultimately dismissed\nby the Hon'ble Court, but in the instant case, before us, under appeal, it is to be\nnoted that the village Hukmakhedi was itself outside the municipal limits of Indore\n( and was never an area within the Indore

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

19,503/-. Case selected for scrutiny assessment through CASS for the reason ‘large unsecured loans’. Notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act duly served upon the assessee along with detailed questionnaire seeking various information from the assessee including the details of unsecured loans. Reply was filed by the assessee replying each and every information asked

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68,732/- 18 3. Shri Utpal Goyal 1,31,868/- 18 4. Shri Narendra Barta 8,58,336/- 16 Total 45,65,847/- 5. According to the Ld. AO, such excess interest to the persons covered under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act was not available in terms of the provisions of the said Section and thus

DCIT CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68,732/- 18 3. Shri Utpal Goyal 1,31,868/- 18 4. Shri Narendra Barta 8,58,336/- 16 Total 45,65,847/- 5. According to the Ld. AO, such excess interest to the persons covered under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act was not available in terms of the provisions of the said Section and thus

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68,732/- 18 3. Shri Utpal Goyal 1,31,868/- 18 4. Shri Narendra Barta 8,58,336/- 16 Total 45,65,847/- 5. According to the Ld. AO, such excess interest to the persons covered under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act was not available in terms of the provisions of the said Section and thus