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
ITA 1348/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 May 2020AY 2008-09
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.
For Respondent: Shri A. Sundararajan, Addl. CIT
Section 194HSection 200Section 201(1)Section 201(3)Section 201(3)(i)Section 203
transferred to the distributor’.
45. Taking into account the provisions of Section 182 of the Contract
Act and the arrangement which has been entered into between the company and the distributor and taking into account the provisions of Section 194H, the Tribunal while considering the evidence on record, in our considered opinion, has misdirected itself in considering the case from
