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

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)

1)(vii) would also have to be construed as involving a human element • The expression 'technical service' would have reference to only technical service rendered by a human. Page 36 of 65 ITA No. 415/Ind/2014 & 265/Ind/2018 – AY 2010-11 M/s Vodafone Idea Ltd. (Formerly M/s Idea Cellular Ltd.) • MTNL or other companies do not provide any assistance to the assessee

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)

1)(vii) would also have to be construed as involving a human element • The expression 'technical service' would have reference to only technical service rendered by a human. Page 36 of 65 ITA No. 415/Ind/2014 & 265/Ind/2018 – AY 2010-11 M/s Vodafone Idea Ltd. (Formerly M/s Idea Cellular Ltd.) • MTNL or other companies do not provide any assistance to the assessee

M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

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

vii. Complying with all other provisions as required under the income tax or any other law. 10. The assessee has complied with all the above listed requirements and has not breached the trust entrusted by the Act while granting registration u/s 12A of the Act. 11. The apprehensions expressed on the basis of surmises and conjectures are incorrect, unjustified

M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. ACIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

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

vii. Complying with all other provisions as required under the income tax or any other law. 10. The assessee has complied with all the above listed requirements and has not breached the trust entrusted by the Act while granting registration u/s 12A of the Act. 11. The apprehensions expressed on the basis of surmises and conjectures are incorrect, unjustified

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE vs. COMMANDER INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and CO of assessee are dismissed

vii)Desney Broadcasting (India) (P.) Ltd. vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 163 taxmann.com 40\n4.1 Ld. AR has heavily relied the impugned order of the CIT(A) and submitted that the CIT(A) has allowed the claim of depreciation on goodwill by following the various judgments by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Tribunal

D.K. CONSTRUCTIONS,BHOPAL vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2018-19 D.K.Constructions, Pcit (Central), Dk Cottage, Bhopal 24, Carat E8, बनाम/ Near Gujrati Colony,, Vs. Bawadiya Kalan, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaafd7121P Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ca Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 28.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2024

36,88,000/- being shortfall in consideration paid by assessee attracted taxability u/s 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act. However, neither the assessee has offered the differential amount as income in terms of section 56(2)(x)(b) nor the AO has conducted any enquiry qua this issue while passing assessment-order. Therefore, the Page

THE ACIT, -2(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

vii) The assessee made initial investments for developing the project.\n14.\nLd. AR then placed a heavy reliance on following decisions as filed in\n“Case Laws Compilation” submitted by him:\nParas Housing (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2013) 22 ITJ 273 (Trib. Indore):\n\"6. The only objection of the Assessing Officer was that total construction\nof the plot

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S. SHAKTI PUMPS (INDIA) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani(Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Acit (Central)-2, Shakti Pumps (India) Ltd. Indore 226, Shastri Market, बनाम/ M.G. Road, Vs. Indore (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aaecs 5027 L Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti & Vijay Bansal, Ars Date Of Hearing 23/11/2022 / 22.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26.04.2023

transfer of goods or services. 2.29 The contention of the appellant are found to be correct in as much as that the Ld. AO has passed the assessment order u/s 143(3) but has approached on an estimation basis which is arbitrary, adhoc and devoid of any basis. The Ld. AO is free to resort to making assessment

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

1 kgm Silver bar was sold with a profit in the range of Rs. 500'/- to Rs 800/- during the reference year. In view of the above, gross profit earned on sale of per Silver bar is determined at Rs. 800/- In this regard the reply given for Gross Profit estimation in case of Gold KG Bars is equally applicable

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

1 kgm Silver bar was sold with a profit in the range of Rs. 500'/- to Rs 800/- during the reference year. In view of the above, gross profit earned on sale of per Silver bar is determined at Rs. 800/- In this regard the reply given for Gross Profit estimation in case of Gold KG Bars is equally applicable

JCIT(OSD),-2(1),INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

1 kgm Silver bar was sold with a profit in the range of Rs. 500'/- to Rs 800/- during the reference year. In view of the above, gross profit earned on sale of per Silver bar is determined at Rs. 800/- In this regard the reply given for Gross Profit estimation in case of Gold KG Bars is equally applicable

VAISHALI DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS ,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -1(2), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Gupta

36 (Appeal Memo) and accordingly claims that the present appeal has been filed within the prescribed period of 60 days. Shri Harsh Malhotra, partner of assessee-firm, has filed an affidavit on Page 146 of Paper-Book of AY 2007-08 / Page 165 of Paper-Book of AY 2009-10, making a solemnised averment that the impugned order was served

THE DCIT1(1), INDORE vs. SHRI RAVI ARORA, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2011-12 Dcit-5(1), Shri Ravi Arora, Indore 1007, Khatiwala Tank, बनाम/ 236, Indraprasth Tower, 6, M.G. Road, Vs. Indore. (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Agdpa8921H Assessee By Shri Yash Kukreja, Ca & Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Adv & Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri P.K.Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 04.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2023

vii) copies of the share application forms. The Assessing Officer rejected the explanation and added the sum of Rs. 55.5 lakhs to the total income of the assessee. The addition was deleted by the Commissioner (Appeals) and this was confirmed by the Tribunal. On appeal to the High Court: “Held, dismissing the appeal, that there was a clear lack

THE ACIT, 2(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

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

36 but subsequently revised grounds dated 03.09.2024 have been filed. During hearing, Ld. AR for assessee/respondent did not have any objection against filing of revised grounds. Therefore, the appeals have been heard on revised grounds and the same are being adjudicated in subsequent discussions. Page 2 of 40 ACIT-2(1), Bhopal Vs. M/s D.K. Construction ITA No.59, 159 & 436/Ind/2015

THE ACIT, 2(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

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

36 but subsequently revised grounds dated 03.09.2024 have been filed. During hearing, Ld. AR for assessee/respondent did not have any objection against filing of revised grounds. Therefore, the appeals have been heard on revised grounds and the same are being adjudicated in subsequent discussions. Page 2 of 40 ACIT-2(1), Bhopal Vs. M/s D.K. Construction ITA No.59, 159 & 436/Ind/2015

VAISHALI DEVELOPERS ANDBUILDERS,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1 (2), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

36 (Appeal Memo) and accordingly claims that the\npresent appeal has been filed within the prescribed period of 60 days. Shri\nHarsh Malhotra, partner of assessee-firm, has filed an affidavit on Page 146\nof Paper-Book of AY 2007-08 / Page 165 of Paper-Book of AY 2009-10,\nmaking a solemnised averment that the impugned order was served

ACIT(CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. SHRI PUNIT AGRAWAL, MHOW

Appeals are dismissed

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

36 incorporating Legal Representative’s name. The Ld. AR appearing from Respondent/Assessee’s side has also filed a power of attorney signed by Legal Representative. Accordingly, the name of Legal Representative is mentioned in the title of these appeals. 4. The background facts leading to present appeals are such that the assessee is an individual. A search