THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S. MANISH AGRO TECH PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result grounds of revenue for A

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

77 to 229 of the paper book) 3.4 It is further submitted that it is wrongly alleged by the A0 that the appellant has obtained contrived artificial losses of Rs. (-) 14,89,59,801/-by synchronized trading in commodities through dubious brokers on National Multi Exchange (NMCE). It is submitted that there is no basis of this allegation and nothing

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S. MANISH AGRO TECH PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result grounds of revenue for A

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

77 to 229 of the paper book) 3.4 It is further submitted that it is wrongly alleged by the A0 that the appellant has obtained contrived artificial losses of Rs. (-) 14,89,59,801/-by synchronized trading in commodities through dubious brokers on National Multi Exchange (NMCE). It is submitted that there is no basis of this allegation and nothing

M/S LIMAGRAIN INDIA PVT. LTD. ,SECUNDERABAD, HYDRABAD vs. N.F.A.C, DELHI

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S.Limagrain India National Faceless Private Limited, Assessment Centre, H.No. 1-8-201 To 203, Delhi Ashoka My Home बनाम/ Chambers, Flat No. 208, 209, 2Nd Vs. Floor, S.P.Road, Secunderabad, Hyderabad (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaccb6862A Assessee By Shri Pankaj Sancheti, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 19.01.2024

section 144C(13) & 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2017-18, the assessee has filed this appeal. Page 1 of 20 M/s.Limagrain India Private Ltd., Indore. Vs. NFAC,Delhi Assessment year 2017-18 2. The registry has informed that that the present appeal is filed after a delay of 11 days and therefore

M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (TDS), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

77 STC 182 which was affirmed by the Supreme Court, that mere custody or possession of equipment without effective control can only result in use of the equipment whereas a right to use the equipment implies control over the equipment. We do not think that such distinction has any legal basis. In the case of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. (supra

M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (TDS), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

77 STC 182 which was affirmed by the Supreme Court, that mere custody or possession of equipment without effective control can only result in use of the equipment whereas a right to use the equipment implies control over the equipment. We do not think that such distinction has any legal basis. In the case of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. (supra

M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (TDS), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

77 STC 182 which was affirmed by the Supreme Court, that mere custody or possession of equipment without effective control can only result in use of the equipment whereas a right to use the equipment implies control over the equipment. We do not think that such distinction has any legal basis. In the case of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. (supra

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)

77 STC Page 23 of 65 ITA No. 415/Ind/2014 & 265/Ind/2018 – AY 2010-11 M/s Vodafone Idea Ltd. (Formerly M/s Idea Cellular Ltd.) 182 which was affirmed by the Supreme Court, that mere custody or possession of equipment without effective control can only result in use of the equipment whereas a right to use the equipment implies control over the equipment

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)

77 STC Page 23 of 65 ITA No. 415/Ind/2014 & 265/Ind/2018 – AY 2010-11 M/s Vodafone Idea Ltd. (Formerly M/s Idea Cellular Ltd.) 182 which was affirmed by the Supreme Court, that mere custody or possession of equipment without effective control can only result in use of the equipment whereas a right to use the equipment implies control over the equipment

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

77,91,315/-. The assessee has got his books of accounts. Audited as per the provisions of section 44AB of the I.T. Act.” [Emphasis supplied] Ld. AR also drew us to the last para of assessment-order where, while computing total income of assessee, the AO has allowed deduction of Rs. 1,62,04,760/- u/s 80-IC and completed

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

Appeals are dismissed

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

77,91,315/-. The assessee has got his books of accounts. Audited as per the provisions of section 44AB of the I.T. Act.” [Emphasis supplied] Ld. AR also drew us to the last para of assessment-order where, while computing total income of assessee, the AO has allowed deduction of Rs. 1,62,04,760/- u/s 80-IC and completed

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

77,91,315/-. The assessee has got his books of accounts. Audited as per the provisions of section 44AB of the I.T. Act.” [Emphasis supplied] Ld. AR also drew us to the last para of assessment-order where, while computing total income of assessee, the AO has allowed deduction of Rs. 1,62,04,760/- u/s 80-IC and completed

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

77,91,315/-. The assessee has got his books of accounts. Audited as per the provisions of section 44AB of the I.T. Act.” [Emphasis supplied] Ld. AR also drew us to the last para of assessment-order where, while computing total income of assessee, the AO has allowed deduction of Rs. 1,62,04,760/- u/s 80-IC and completed

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

Appeals are dismissed

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

77,91,315/-. The assessee has got his books of accounts. Audited as per the provisions of section 44AB of the I.T. Act.” [Emphasis supplied] Ld. AR also drew us to the last para of assessment-order where, while computing total income of assessee, the AO has allowed deduction of Rs. 1,62,04,760/- u/s 80-IC and completed

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

77,91,315/-. The assessee has got his books of accounts. Audited as per the provisions of section 44AB of the I.T. Act.” [Emphasis supplied] Ld. AR also drew us to the last para of assessment-order where, while computing total income of assessee, the AO has allowed deduction of Rs. 1,62,04,760/- u/s 80-IC and completed

JAI PRAKASH NARAYAN SHARMA,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

77,095\n3.\nThus, there are two variations made by AO. Firstly, the assessee\ndeclared sale consideration at Rs.1,37,00,000/- equivalent to actual\namount received from buyer as against which the AO adopted sale\nconsideration at Rs.2,02,00,000/- equivalent to the valuation done by\nstamps authority, in terms of section 50C. Secondly, the assessee claimed\nexemption

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

M/S CENTURY 21 MALLS P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, all appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, while all appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

transferred from one entity to another, or amongst the above three companies; that therefore it was a case where section 292C would come to play, because despite number of instances of unaccounted money being not recognized in the accounts. He held that integration of all the three accounts and taking all the unaccounted and accounts of all three companies together