ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-II, BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. M/S AGRAWAL CONSTRUCTION CO., BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing It(Ss)A Nos.233 To 238/Ind/2017 Assessment Year:2006-07 To 2011-12 M/S. Agrawal Construction Co. Acit, 1(1) बनाम/ Bhopal Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.Aaefa8225H It(Ss)A No.224 To 226/Ind/2017 Assessment Year:2009-10 To 2011-12 Acit, 1(1) M/S. Agrawal Construction बनाम/ Bhopal Co. Bhopal Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaefa8225H Assessment Year: 2012-13

26 issue raised in the instant appeals, setsing aside the finding of both lower authorities and allowing the claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act made by the assessee for A.Ys.2006-07 to 2008-09 at Rs. 3,33,72,475/-, Rs.7965722/- & Rs.1,76,81,161/- for A.Y.2006-07 to 2008-09, respectively. Accordingly, grounds regarding deduction

M/S AGARWAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ,BHOPAL vs. DYPTI COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing It(Ss)A Nos.233 To 238/Ind/2017 Assessment Year:2006-07 To 2011-12 M/S. Agrawal Construction Co. Acit, 1(1) बनाम/ Bhopal Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.Aaefa8225H It(Ss)A No.224 To 226/Ind/2017 Assessment Year:2009-10 To 2011-12 Acit, 1(1) M/S. Agrawal Construction बनाम/ Bhopal Co. Bhopal Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaefa8225H Assessment Year: 2012-13

26 issue raised in the instant appeals, setsing aside the finding of both lower authorities and allowing the claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act made by the assessee for A.Ys.2006-07 to 2008-09 at Rs. 3,33,72,475/-, Rs.7965722/- & Rs.1,76,81,161/- for A.Y.2006-07 to 2008-09, respectively. Accordingly, grounds regarding deduction

D.K CONSTRUCTION,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 2 (3), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanid. K Construction Ito 2(3) E 2/21, Pandit Deeendayal Bhopal Complex, Arera Colony, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaafd7121P Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit- Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 04.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09 .09.2024

TDS.” 2. At the time of hearing Ld. AR of the assesse has stated at bar that due to smallness of disallowance the assessee does not press ground no.2 of the grounds of appeal and the same may be dismissed as not pressed. Ld. DR has raised no objection if ground no.2 of the assesse’s appeal is dismissed

M/S MADHYA PRADESH MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT, BHOPAL

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

10. Apropos ground No.6, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated this ground, therefore, we deem it proper that the issue be restored to the AO to verify the claim of the assessee in respect of credit of TDS. In case the TDS has been deducted and paid in accordance with

M/S MADHYA PRADESH MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

10. Apropos ground No.6, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated this ground, therefore, we deem it proper that the issue be restored to the AO to verify the claim of the assessee in respect of credit of TDS. In case the TDS has been deducted and paid in accordance with

SUPREME TRANSPORT COMPANY,INDORE vs. ITO TDS-II, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

10 of 23 M/s. Supreme Transport Company ITA No. 914 & 917/Ind/2024 – AY 2013-14 Financial Year 2012-13 / Q2 – 24Q & Q3-24Q] clause (c) was inserted to section 200A(1) by the Finance Act, 2015. Hon'ble High Court also considered the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatehraj Singhvi & Others. The issue has been

SUPREME TRANSPORT COMPANY,INDORE vs. ITO TDS-II, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

10 of 23 M/s. Supreme Transport Company ITA No. 914 & 917/Ind/2024 – AY 2013-14 Financial Year 2012-13 / Q2 – 24Q & Q3-24Q] clause (c) was inserted to section 200A(1) by the Finance Act, 2015. Hon'ble High Court also considered the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatehraj Singhvi & Others. The issue has been

M/S. M. P. WARE HOUSING & LOGISTICS CORPORATION,INDORE vs. CIT (TDS), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2011-12 M.P. Warehousing & Acit (Tds) Logistics Corporation, Vs. Indore Lrt Parisar, Aerodrum Road, Bada Ganapati, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Aadcm7742B Appellant By Shri Rajesh Mehta, Ca Revenue By Shri K.G. Goyal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12.03.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 26.05.2020

TDS Tax Name of Co-owners Share Paid Deductible deducted Sadhana Agrawal 20 65,241/- 6,52,397/- 65,240/- Satishchandra Arya 17 5,54,538/- 55,454/- 55,454/- Aruna Arya 17 5,54,538/- 55,454/- 55,453/- Sandhya Gupta 10 3,26,198/- 32,620/- 32,618/- R.M. Gupta 10 3,26

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

Appeals are allowed

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

10,18,92,350/-. Respectfully following above judicial precedents, we hold that these charges are not fees for rendering any technical services as envisaged in Section 194J of the Act. Therefore, we reverse the order of the ld CIT(A) and assessee’s appeal is allowed on this ground also. It is contended that the facts, circumstances and issues

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

Appeals are allowed

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

10,18,92,350/-. Respectfully following above judicial precedents, we hold that these charges are not fees for rendering any technical services as envisaged in Section 194J of the Act. Therefore, we reverse the order of the ld CIT(A) and assessee’s appeal is allowed on this ground also. It is contended that the facts, circumstances and issues

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

Appeals are allowed

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

10,18,92,350/-. Respectfully following above judicial precedents, we hold that these charges are not fees for rendering any technical services as envisaged in Section 194J of the Act. Therefore, we reverse the order of the ld CIT(A) and assessee’s appeal is allowed on this ground also. It is contended that the facts, circumstances and issues

THE ACIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PVT. LTD., RAISEN

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

10-11&11-12 DCIT vs. Andritz Hydro Pvt. Ltd T.P. A. No. 265/Ind/2015 & 349/Ind/2016/A.Y.:10-11&11-12 designated as royalty @ 5% on sales in India and adjacent countries and @8% of exports to other countries, the assessee submits that the terms and conditions mentioned in the agreement relating to transactions of sales of generators which have been developed

M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS VA TECH HYDRO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

10-11&11-12 DCIT vs. Andritz Hydro Pvt. Ltd T.P. A. No. 265/Ind/2015 & 349/Ind/2016/A.Y.:10-11&11-12 designated as royalty @ 5% on sales in India and adjacent countries and @8% of exports to other countries, the assessee submits that the terms and conditions mentioned in the agreement relating to transactions of sales of generators which have been developed

THE DCIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PVT. LTD., RAISEN

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

10-11&11-12 DCIT vs. Andritz Hydro Pvt. Ltd T.P. A. No. 265/Ind/2015 & 349/Ind/2016/A.Y.:10-11&11-12 designated as royalty @ 5% on sales in India and adjacent countries and @8% of exports to other countries, the assessee submits that the terms and conditions mentioned in the agreement relating to transactions of sales of generators which have been developed

M/S ANDRITZ HYDRO PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS V A TECH HYDRO INDAI PVT. LTD.),MANDIDEEP vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

10-11&11-12 DCIT vs. Andritz Hydro Pvt. Ltd T.P. A. No. 265/Ind/2015 & 349/Ind/2016/A.Y.:10-11&11-12 designated as royalty @ 5% on sales in India and adjacent countries and @8% of exports to other countries, the assessee submits that the terms and conditions mentioned in the agreement relating to transactions of sales of generators which have been developed

PERMALI WALLACE PVT. LTD,BHOPAL vs. ITO (IT & TP), BHOPAL

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

10,47,750/-. Thus, the payee has incurred loss on installation activity. To establish the factum of loss, the Page 16 of 29 Permali Wallace P. Ltd., Bhopal vs. ITO, Bhopal, ITA Nos.550 to 552/Ind/2018 - A.Ys.2014-15 to 2016-17 assessee filed documentary evidences in the form of (i) a Letter dated 25.05.2016 of payee confirming that they have

PERMALI WALLACE PVT. LTD,BHOPAL vs. ITO (IT & TP), BHOPAL

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

10,47,750/-. Thus, the payee has incurred loss on installation activity. To establish the factum of loss, the Page 16 of 29 Permali Wallace P. Ltd., Bhopal vs. ITO, Bhopal, ITA Nos.550 to 552/Ind/2018 - A.Ys.2014-15 to 2016-17 assessee filed documentary evidences in the form of (i) a Letter dated 25.05.2016 of payee confirming that they have

PERMALI WALLACE PVT. LTD,BHOPAL vs. ITO (IT & TP), BHOPAL

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

10,47,750/-. Thus, the payee has incurred loss on installation activity. To establish the factum of loss, the Page 16 of 29 Permali Wallace P. Ltd., Bhopal vs. ITO, Bhopal, ITA Nos.550 to 552/Ind/2018 - A.Ys.2014-15 to 2016-17 assessee filed documentary evidences in the form of (i) a Letter dated 25.05.2016 of payee confirming that they have