DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5(1), INDORE vs. M/S SUNDERDEEP CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. , INDORE

In the result both the appeals of the revenue vide ITA No

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

section 251 (4) of IT Act. Sunderdeep Construction Pvt. Ltd ITA No.784 & 786/Ind/2018 Para 3.18:- Regarding allowing of cross examination of Shri N.M. Mathur, the architect, there is nothing on record to prove that the assessee had sought cross-examination. Further, not giving cross- examination is not sufficient ground for allowing the appeal of assessee as held in following cases

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

SHRI RAJYAVARDHAN SINGH,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE 5(1), INDORE

In the result, both the appeal of assessee in ITANo

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

251(2). (v) Applicability of Sex. 50 to sale of leasehold property. (vi) Cash deposited in bank a/c total: Rs. 28.73 lakhs. 1.2. The Hon'ble Tribunal set aside most of the above points vide its Order in ITA No. 379/IND/17 t. 23-03-2018, and restored it to the CIT(A). The CIT{A) has now fixed the hearing

SHRI RAJYAVARDHAN SINGH,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE 5(1), INDORE

In the result, both the appeal of assessee in ITANo

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

251(2). (v) Applicability of Sex. 50 to sale of leasehold property. (vi) Cash deposited in bank a/c total: Rs. 28.73 lakhs. 1.2. The Hon'ble Tribunal set aside most of the above points vide its Order in ITA No. 379/IND/17 t. 23-03-2018, and restored it to the CIT(A). The CIT{A) has now fixed the hearing

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 of the High Courts

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 of the High Courts

MS MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT LTD,BHOPAL vs. ACIT 2 (1) BHOPAL, BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are dismissed

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

price. P&G has constructed factory building on land and also installed plant and machinery. The plant and machinery does not belong to assessee but to P&G. Reimbursement of expenses is also made by P&G. The assessee is working for P&G, not for anybody else. These factors clearly show that the assessee is just an operator

MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT LTD ,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT -2- (1), BHOPAL , BHOPAL

Appeals are dismissed

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

price. P&G has constructed factory building on land and also installed plant and machinery. The plant and machinery does not belong to assessee but to P&G. Reimbursement of expenses is also made by P&G. The assessee is working for P&G, not for anybody else. These factors clearly show that the assessee is just an operator

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 5(1), BHOPAL , BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH vs. MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT LTD, BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are dismissed

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

price. P&G has constructed factory building on land and also installed plant and machinery. The plant and machinery does not belong to assessee but to P&G. Reimbursement of expenses is also made by P&G. The assessee is working for P&G, not for anybody else. These factors clearly show that the assessee is just an operator

MS MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT LTD,BHOPAL vs. ACIT 2 (1) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals are dismissed

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

price. P&G has constructed factory building on land and also installed plant and machinery. The plant and machinery does not belong to assessee but to P&G. Reimbursement of expenses is also made by P&G. The assessee is working for P&G, not for anybody else. These factors clearly show that the assessee is just an operator

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -5(1), BHOPAL , BHOPAL, MADHYA PRADESH vs. MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT. LTD., BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are dismissed

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

price. P&G has constructed factory building on land and also installed plant and machinery. The plant and machinery does not belong to assessee but to P&G. Reimbursement of expenses is also made by P&G. The assessee is working for P&G, not for anybody else. These factors clearly show that the assessee is just an operator

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 5 1, BHOPAL , BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH vs. MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT LTD, BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are dismissed

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

price. P&G has constructed factory building on land and also installed plant and machinery. The plant and machinery does not belong to assessee but to P&G. Reimbursement of expenses is also made by P&G. The assessee is working for P&G, not for anybody else. These factors clearly show that the assessee is just an operator

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

transferred. It would have a value in the market depending upon its quality. In Commissioner of Income Tax v. M.K. Gabrial Babu and others19, the High Court of Kerala was dealing with the question, as to whether immovable property would be covered within the expression ‘other value article or thing’ within the meaning of Section

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

transferred. It would have a value in the market depending upon its quality. In Commissioner of Income Tax v. M.K. Gabrial Babu and others19, the High Court of Kerala was dealing with the question, as to whether immovable property would be covered within the expression ‘other value article or thing’ within the meaning of Section

BIRENDRA KUMAR SHARMA,GWALIOR vs. ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 250(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961 by not giving a notice to the Assessing Officer of the date and place for the hearing the appeal, 2. Not following the provisions of section 250(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961 by not providing the Assessing Officer an opportunity of being heard at the hearing of the appeal

SHRI SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA,GWALIOR vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 250(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961 by not giving a notice to the Assessing Officer of the date and place for the hearing the appeal, 2. Not following the provisions of section 250(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961 by not providing the Assessing Officer an opportunity of being heard at the hearing of the appeal