RUPESH VYAS,INDORE vs. THE ACIT3(1), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri B.M. Biyani

201 Taxman 94 (Punjab & Haryana) (MAG.) /[2012] 340 ITR 161 (Punjab & Haryana) / [2012] 247 CTR 468 (Punjab & Haryana), Hon'ble Court held:- "Section 69 of the Income-Tax Act,1961-Unexplained investments. AY.1998-99. During assessment proceedings, Assessing Officers found that assessee had purchased certain shares of a company Page 16 of 26 Shri Rupesh Vyas Assessment year

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

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

3) and application\nof section 68 in the instant case is legally unjustified and improper because 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

AG-8 VENTURES LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

68,50,000/- made by the A.O. on account of unaccounted receipts. 3. On the fact and in the Circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 54,62,000/- made by the A.O. on account of unexplained investment. 4. On the fact and in the Circumstance of the case

AG-8 VENTURES LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

68,50,000/- made by the A.O. on account of unaccounted receipts. 3. On the fact and in the Circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 54,62,000/- made by the A.O. on account of unexplained investment. 4. On the fact and in the Circumstance of the case

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

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

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

THE ACIT-2(1), UJJAIN vs. SHRI SANJAY BAGDI, UJJAIN

In the result appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year 2012-13 Assistant Commissioner Of Shri Sanjay Bagdi, Income Tax – 2(1), Vs. 173 Alakhdham Nagar, Ujjain Ujjain (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Ahcpb6349L Revenue By Shri K.G. Goyal, Sr.Dr Assessee By S/Shri S.S. Deshpande & Bhavesh Netkar,Cas Date Of Hearing 01.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 14.11.2018 O R D E R

201 0-1l. Both the above assessments 3 Sanjay Bagdi have been completed u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act. It will be appropriate to adopt similar net profit in this year also in order to meet the end of the justice. During this year the appellant is in receipts and Rs.6,04,82,012/- as contract receipts

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

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

201 Taxman 94 (Punjab & Hal"yana){MAG.)/ [2012] 340 ITR 161 (Punjab & Haryana) [2012] 247 CTR 468 (Punjab & Haryana) "Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained investments _ Assessment year 1998-99 - During assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer found that assessee had purchased certain shares of a company at rate between Rs. 2.50 and Rs. 3.40 per share

M/S MEDPAK INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT 3(1), INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

3(1), Indore. 201, Pushparatan Paradise, Indore (M.P.). [PAN – AACCM 8273 C] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri C.P. Rawka, AR Respondent by : Shri R.S. Ambedkar, D.R. Date of hearing : 17.05.2022 Date of pronouncement : 30.05.2022 O R D E R PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER : This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 13.07.2016 passed

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

201(1)/201(1A) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 dated 31-03-2017 wherein he determined demand on account of short-deduction of tax at Rs. 6,948/- and interest on such short-deduction of tax at Rs. 2,073/- on the payments made to M/s Hoswin Incinerator Private Limited for collection and disposal of waste wherein

THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE vs. DR. SHRI RAJEEV CHAUDHARY, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed and cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble I Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2008-09 Pan : Abkpc5729K Assistant Commissioner Of V/S Dr.Rajeev Choudhary Income Tax, 1, Shiv Vilas Palace Circle-2(1), Indore Indore

section 143(3) of IT, Act, 1961 at Rs.3,17,71,700/- 5. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and partly succeeded as Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act at Rs.2,15,542/- and allowed the assessee’s claim of profit from purchase and sale of equity shares held

SANDEEP KUMAR YADAV,BETUL vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHO

The appeal of the appellant is dismissed for statistical purpose

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Paresh M Joshisandeep Kumar Yadav, Nfac, बना Palsyapalsya, Delhi म/ Palsya, Vs. The. Bhainsdehi, Betul (Pan: Afnpy3295D) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.04.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

section 68 of the I.T. Act. The assessee has not filed any documents to prove the genuineness & creditworthiness of the transactions made by him during the financial year 2012-13 relevant to A.Y.2013-14. Thus, I have no alternative but to complete the exparte assessment u/s. 144 r.w.s.147 of the Income