THE ACIT, 4(1), INDORE vs. SHRI SANJAY LUNAWAT, INDORE

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2010-11

68 of the I.T. Act in respect of unsecured loan from various persons, even though their creditworthiness was not proved. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, , Ld. CIT (A) is justified in deleting the additions of Rs. 10,18.500/- on account or disallowances or interest on property claimed by the Sanjay Lunawat ITA No.396/Ind/2018

PIYUSH JAIN,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-4(4), INDORE , ITO, INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

section 68\nhas no application when cash is received on account of sales consideration. He\nfurther states that since trading results have been accepted then purchases and sales\ncannot be added u/s 68 as held in the case of CIT v. Pancham Dass Jain [2006]\nreported 250 CTR 444. He further pointed out that cash balance of the assessee

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. 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

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

URBAN ADMINISTRATION AMD DEVELOPMENT,BHOPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), BHOPAL

In the result, the impugned order is set aside as & by way of

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshidirectorate Of Urban Deputy बनाम/ Administrations & Development, Commissioner Of Vs. Nagar Palika Bhawan, 6 No.Bus Income Tax-Tds, Stop, R.S.Market, Bhopal S.O. Huzur, Bhopal(M.P.) (Tan: Bpldo1618B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sapan Usrethe, Adv. & Ms. Apoorva Garg, Ca Revenue By Shri Anup Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 21.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2026 आदेश / O R D E R

section 201(1A), the assessee was held liable to pay simple interest at the rate of one percent per month on the amount of Default for AY 2015-16 which was calculated at Rs. 2,60,123/-. [CEPT University Ahmedabad] It was also found out in the order that for AY 2015-16, the assessee- deductor has made short

RADHESHYAM AGARWAL,BHOPAL vs. THE PCIT, CENTRAL, BHOPAL , BHOPAL

201],\nHon'ble Delhi High Court has held revision u/s 263 to be valid when it\nwas found that there was no proper consideration by A.O to issues at\nhand and he left many loose ends. Similarly, in the case of Raj Mandir\nEstates [386 ITR 162] and Daniel Merchants Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO [2017\nTIOL-2526-H.C Kolkata

M/S SHRI GURMUKHDAS CONTRACTORS P LTD,BHOPAL vs. DCIT-CENRRAL-1, BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeals in I

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

201 1-12 to 2017-18 j Shri Gurumukhdas Constractors Pvt. Ltd. 4 AAKPV6009J 153A 2011-12 to 2017- 18 Suresh Vaswani 5 Sushil Vaswani AAKPV5987D 153A 2011-12 to 2017-18 4. It should be ensured that the final assessment orders are passed and served on the assessees well in time. A copy of the final assessment orders should

PARMANAND SACHDEV,INDORE vs. ITO 5(5), INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

section 68" 3.Balbir Chand Maini Vs CIT [2011] 12 taxmann.com 276 (Punjab & Haryana)/[2011] 201 Taxman 94 (Punjab & Hal"yana

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

201-19 to 2021-22, ) Shri Anil Dhakad DCIT 227, Saket Nagar Central-I Vs. Indore Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) PAN: ABHPD1501B Assessee by Shri P.D. Nagar, AR Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 23.04.2024 Date of Pronouncement 29.04.2024 O R D E R Per Bench : These four appeals by assessee are directed against

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

201-19 to 2021-22, ) Shri Anil Dhakad DCIT 227, Saket Nagar Central-I Vs. Indore Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) PAN: ABHPD1501B Assessee by Shri P.D. Nagar, AR Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 23.04.2024 Date of Pronouncement 29.04.2024 O R D E R Per Bench : These four appeals by assessee are directed against

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

201-19 to 2021-22, ) Shri Anil Dhakad DCIT 227, Saket Nagar Central-I Vs. Indore Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) PAN: ABHPD1501B Assessee by Shri P.D. Nagar, AR Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 23.04.2024 Date of Pronouncement 29.04.2024 O R D E R Per Bench : These four appeals by assessee are directed against

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

201-19 to 2021-22, ) Shri Anil Dhakad DCIT 227, Saket Nagar Central-I Vs. Indore Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) PAN: ABHPD1501B Assessee by Shri P.D. Nagar, AR Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 23.04.2024 Date of Pronouncement 29.04.2024 O R D E R Per Bench : These four appeals by assessee are directed against

SOM DISTILLERIES AND BREWERIES LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(1), BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniay: 2013-14 Som Distilleries & Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ Breweries Limited, 1(1), Vs. Som House, Bhopal. 23, Zone Ii, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Aabcs3374B) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Ay:2014-15 Acit (Central)-1, Som Distilleries & बनाम/ Bhopal Breweries Limited, Vs. Som House, 23, Zone Ii, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Aabcs3374B) (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent)

section 201(1). But, on perusal of Form No. 26A, the AO found that UBL has declared income of Rs. 2,59,72,000/- only in its return of income filed to department. Accordingly, the AO did not grant benefit of differential of Rs. 47,86,252/- [Rs. 3,07,58,252/- (-) Rs. 2,59,72,000/-] and made

ACIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. SOM DISTILLERIES AND BREWERIES LTD., BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniay: 2013-14 Som Distilleries & Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ Breweries Limited, 1(1), Vs. Som House, Bhopal. 23, Zone Ii, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Aabcs3374B) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Ay:2014-15 Acit (Central)-1, Som Distilleries & बनाम/ Bhopal Breweries Limited, Vs. Som House, 23, Zone Ii, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Aabcs3374B) (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent)

section 201(1). But, on perusal of Form No. 26A, the AO found that UBL has declared income of Rs. 2,59,72,000/- only in its return of income filed to department. Accordingly, the AO did not grant benefit of differential of Rs. 47,86,252/- [Rs. 3,07,58,252/- (-) Rs. 2,59,72,000/-] and made

ITO-3(2),INDORE, INDORE vs. M/S OCEAN MOTORS PVT. LTD, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2014-15 Ito 3(2) M/S Ocean Motors Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Indore Plot No.49, Commercial Mandi Vs. Near Cat Square, Ring Road, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aabc04536F Revenue By Shri Rajib Jain, Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri S. S. Solanki, Ca Date Of Hearing: 05.12.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 18 .12.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: This Appeal At The Instance Of Revenue Pertaining To A.Y. 2014-15 Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Indore, (In Short ‘Cit’), Dated 22.02.2018 Which Is Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961(Hereinafter Called As The ‘Act’) Framed On 30.12.2016 By Ito- 3(2), Indore.

section 68 in respect of cash credits in the books of account of the assessee is fulfilled and therefore, the same constitutes unexplained cash credit sx] s 68 of the Income tax Act. 4.9 In respect of creditors in Table-2 which are 18 in number, it may be seen that against the total loan