VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.9 ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE SOUTH LTD NOW MERGED WITH VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LIMITED),CHENNAI vs. ITO (TDS) WARD 1(6), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1348 & 1349/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2008-09 & 2009-10 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Vodafone South Ltd., Income Tax, Vs. (Now Known As Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), Tower-I, 9Th Floor, Tds Circle – 3, Chennai. Tvh Beliciaa Towers, Block 94, Nrc Nagar, Chennai 600 028. [Pan: Aabcb5847L] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1534 & 1535/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2008-09 & 2009-10 M/S. Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd., Vs. Income Tax Officer (Tds), [Formerly Known As Vodafone Ward I(6), South Ltd.] Tower-I, 9Th Floor, Chennai. Tvh Beliciaa Towers, Block 94, Nrc Nagar, Chennai 600 028. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate, : Ms. Soumya Singh, Advocate & Shri Ketan Ved, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sundararajan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.03.2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.05.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvurul Rl Reddy: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 17, Chennai Dated 02.02.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2009-10. Since Common Ground Has Been Raised By The Same Assessee, Heard Together & Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity.

48. In our considered opinion, Section 194H pre-supposes the payment to be made to the third party namely, Distributor or the Agency and if on a close scrutiny of Section 182, Distributor is not an agent, therefore, in our considered opinion, the provisions of Section 194H have wrongly been invoked, and therefore, the first issue is answered in favour

ACIT TDS CIRCLE 3, CHENNAI vs. VODAFONE SOUTH LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1348 & 1349/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2008-09 & 2009-10 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Vodafone South Ltd., Income Tax, Vs. (Now Known As Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), Tower-I, 9Th Floor, Tds Circle – 3, Chennai. Tvh Beliciaa Towers, Block 94, Nrc Nagar, Chennai 600 028. [Pan: Aabcb5847L] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1534 & 1535/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2008-09 & 2009-10 M/S. Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd., Vs. Income Tax Officer (Tds), [Formerly Known As Vodafone Ward I(6), South Ltd.] Tower-I, 9Th Floor, Chennai. Tvh Beliciaa Towers, Block 94, Nrc Nagar, Chennai 600 028. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate, : Ms. Soumya Singh, Advocate & Shri Ketan Ved, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sundararajan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.03.2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.05.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvurul Rl Reddy: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 17, Chennai Dated 02.02.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2009-10. Since Common Ground Has Been Raised By The Same Assessee, Heard Together & Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity.

48. In our considered opinion, Section 194H pre-supposes the payment to be made to the third party namely, Distributor or the Agency and if on a close scrutiny of Section 182, Distributor is not an agent, therefore, in our considered opinion, the provisions of Section 194H have wrongly been invoked, and therefore, the first issue is answered in favour

ACIT TDS CIRCLE 3, CHENNAI vs. VODAFONE SOUTH LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1348 & 1349/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2008-09 & 2009-10 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Vodafone South Ltd., Income Tax, Vs. (Now Known As Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), Tower-I, 9Th Floor, Tds Circle – 3, Chennai. Tvh Beliciaa Towers, Block 94, Nrc Nagar, Chennai 600 028. [Pan: Aabcb5847L] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1534 & 1535/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2008-09 & 2009-10 M/S. Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd., Vs. Income Tax Officer (Tds), [Formerly Known As Vodafone Ward I(6), South Ltd.] Tower-I, 9Th Floor, Chennai. Tvh Beliciaa Towers, Block 94, Nrc Nagar, Chennai 600 028. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate, : Ms. Soumya Singh, Advocate & Shri Ketan Ved, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sundararajan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.03.2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.05.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvurul Rl Reddy: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 17, Chennai Dated 02.02.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2009-10. Since Common Ground Has Been Raised By The Same Assessee, Heard Together & Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity.

48. In our considered opinion, Section 194H pre-supposes the payment to be made to the third party namely, Distributor or the Agency and if on a close scrutiny of Section 182, Distributor is not an agent, therefore, in our considered opinion, the provisions of Section 194H have wrongly been invoked, and therefore, the first issue is answered in favour

VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, all the appeal filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

48. In our considered opinion, Section 194H pre-supposes the payment to be made to the third party namely, Distributor or the Agency and if on a close scrutiny of Section 182, Distributor is not an agent, therefore, in our considered opinion, the provisions of Section 194H have wrongly been invoked, and therefore, the first issue is answered in favour

VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, all the appeal filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

48. In our considered opinion, Section 194H pre-supposes the payment to be made to the third party namely, Distributor or the Agency and if on a close scrutiny of Section 182, Distributor is not an agent, therefore, in our considered opinion, the provisions of Section 194H have wrongly been invoked, and therefore, the first issue is answered in favour

VODAFONE CELLULAR LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, all the appeal filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

48. In our considered opinion, Section 194H pre-supposes the payment to be made to the third party namely, Distributor or the Agency and if on a close scrutiny of Section 182, Distributor is not an agent, therefore, in our considered opinion, the provisions of Section 194H have wrongly been invoked, and therefore, the first issue is answered in favour

VODAFONE CELLULAR LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, all the appeal filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

48. In our considered opinion, Section 194H pre-supposes the payment to be made to the third party namely, Distributor or the Agency and if on a close scrutiny of Section 182, Distributor is not an agent, therefore, in our considered opinion, the provisions of Section 194H have wrongly been invoked, and therefore, the first issue is answered in favour

VODAFONE CELLULAR LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, all the appeal filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

48. In our considered opinion, Section 194H pre-supposes the payment to be made to the third party namely, Distributor or the Agency and if on a close scrutiny of Section 182, Distributor is not an agent, therefore, in our considered opinion, the provisions of Section 194H have wrongly been invoked, and therefore, the first issue is answered in favour

VODAFONE CELLULAR LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, all the appeal filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

48. In our considered opinion, Section 194H pre-supposes the payment to be made to the third party namely, Distributor or the Agency and if on a close scrutiny of Section 182, Distributor is not an agent, therefore, in our considered opinion, the provisions of Section 194H have wrongly been invoked, and therefore, the first issue is answered in favour

VODAFONE SOUTH LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO TDS, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeal filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

48. In our considered opinion, Section 194H pre-supposes the payment to be made to the third party namely, Distributor or the Agency and if on a close scrutiny of Section 182, Distributor is not an agent, therefore, in our considered opinion, the provisions of Section 194H have wrongly been invoked, and therefore, the first issue is answered in favour

VODAFONE SOUTH LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO TDS, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeal filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

48. In our considered opinion, Section 194H pre-supposes the payment to be made to the third party namely, Distributor or the Agency and if on a close scrutiny of Section 182, Distributor is not an agent, therefore, in our considered opinion, the provisions of Section 194H have wrongly been invoked, and therefore, the first issue is answered in favour

M/S. SIVANANDHA MILLS LTD.,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, ITA No.2106/Mds/13 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

TDS from such payments. The recipients had also duly reflected / accounted for these sums in their respective accounts and returns as applicable. It will be pertinent to point out that this commission works out to less than 5% of the entire sale consideration. It was the contention 6 - - ITA 1216 & 2106/13 of the assessee that

SIVANANDHA MILLS LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, ITA No.2106/Mds/13 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

TDS from such payments. The recipients had also duly reflected / accounted for these sums in their respective accounts and returns as applicable. It will be pertinent to point out that this commission works out to less than 5% of the entire sale consideration. It was the contention 6 - - ITA 1216 & 2106/13 of the assessee that

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

48,492/- on the interest on the OFCD. It has to be noted despite many opportunities, the assessee was not able to prove before the Ld JCIT (Transfer Pricing) that this interest rate was its arm’s length price. Therefore, explanation-7 of section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1971 is applicable on this adjustment.” Consultancy charges

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

48,492/- on the interest on the OFCD. It has to be noted despite many opportunities, the assessee was not able to prove before the Ld JCIT (Transfer Pricing) that this interest rate was its arm’s length price. Therefore, explanation-7 of section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1971 is applicable on this adjustment.” Consultancy charges

SIVA INDUSTRIES AND HOLDINGS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

48,492/- on the interest on the OFCD. It has to be noted despite many opportunities, the assessee was not able to prove before the Ld JCIT (Transfer Pricing) that this interest rate was its arm’s length price. Therefore, explanation-7 of section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1971 is applicable on this adjustment.” Consultancy charges

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

48,492/- on the interest on the OFCD. It has to be noted despite many opportunities, the assessee was not able to prove before the Ld JCIT (Transfer Pricing) that this interest rate was its arm’s length price. Therefore, explanation-7 of section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1971 is applicable on this adjustment.” Consultancy charges

GRAND ARK LOGISTICS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORP. CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for the\nstatistical purposes

48,393/-. The assessee claimed\nexemption from TDS under Section 191C(6) of the Act, asserting\nthat 16 contractors furnished

ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 1 (1) FORMERLY KNOWN AS BUSINESS CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S DEOLITE HASKINS & SELLS, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

48 & 49/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years : 2010-11, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Asst. Commissioner of Vs. M/s.Deloittee Haskins & Income Tax, Sells, Non-corporate Circle-1(1), ASV Ramana Towers, (formerly Business Circle-I) 52,Venkatnarayana Road, Chennai. T.Nagar,Chennai 600 017. [PAN AACFD 3771 D ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent / Cross Objector) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan