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

Appeals are allowed

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

195 of the income Tax Act cannot be expected to do the impossible, namely, to apply the expanded definition of “royalty” inserted by explanation 4 to section 9(1)(vi) Page 30 of 55 [[[ ITA No. 109 to 111/Ind/2023 – AYs 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2013-14 M/s Idea Cellular Ltd., Indore. of the Income Tax Act, for the assessment years

BMG CALCUTTAWALA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. AO CPC (TDS), ITO TDS(1) INDORE, INDORE

Appeals are allowed\"

TDS, because the\npayments made to each seller was less than the prescribed limit\nof Rs.50 lacs and therefore, provision of section 194IA was not\napplicable. The demand has been raised by the department u/s\n200 in terms of failure to comply with Section 200A, which\ndeals with the processing of statement of tax deducted at source\nu/s 200. First

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

TDS, because the payments made to each seller was less than the prescribed limit of Rs. 50 lacs and therefore, provision of section 194IA was not applicable. The demand has been raised by the department u/s 200 in terms of failure to comply with Section 200A, which deals with the processing of statement of tax deducted at source

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

TDS, because the payments made to each seller was less than the prescribed limit of Rs. 50 lacs and therefore, provision of section 194IA was not applicable. The demand has been raised by the department u/s 200 in terms of failure to comply with Section 200A, which deals with the processing of statement of tax deducted at source

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)

195 of the income Tax Act cannot be expected to do the impossible, namely, to apply the expanded definition of “royalty” inserted by explanation 4 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, for the assessment years in question, at a time when such explanation was not actually and factually in the statute.” “100. Also, any ruling

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)

195 of the income Tax Act cannot be expected to do the impossible, namely, to apply the expanded definition of “royalty” inserted by explanation 4 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, for the assessment years in question, at a time when such explanation was not actually and factually in the statute.” “100. Also, any ruling

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

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

195 read with section 9(1)(vii) but the assessee had failed to deduct. With such understanding, the AO show-caused assessee u/s 201(1)/(1A) of the Act for non-deduction of TDS

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

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

195 read with section 9(1)(vii) but the assessee had failed to deduct. With such understanding, the AO show-caused assessee u/s 201(1)/(1A) of the Act for non-deduction of TDS

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

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

195 read with section 9(1)(vii) but the assessee had failed to deduct. With such understanding, the AO show-caused assessee u/s 201(1)/(1A) of the Act for non-deduction of TDS

M/S SANGHVI FOODS P LTD, ,INDORE vs. ITO (IT & TP) , BHOPAL

In the result common issue raised in

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

195 of the Act. The amount as paid by the assessee company to M/s Buhler AG Switzerland was liable to tax or not, we have refer the provision of section 5 of the Income Tax Act. 7.3.1] That as per sub- section [2] of section 5 of the Income Tax Act, the total income of any previous year

M/S SANGHVI FOODS P LTD, ,INDORE vs. ITO (IT & TP) , BHOPAL

In the result common issue raised in

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

195 of the Act. The amount as paid by the assessee company to M/s Buhler AG Switzerland was liable to tax or not, we have refer the provision of section 5 of the Income Tax Act. 7.3.1] That as per sub- section [2] of section 5 of the Income Tax Act, the total income of any previous year

MAAN ALUMINIUM LTD.,PITHAMPUR vs. ITO (IT & TP), BHOPAL

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Maan Aluminium Ltd. Ito (It & Tp), 427, Orbit Mall, Bhopal बनाम/ 4Th Floor, Ab Road, Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aapcm 0088 C / Tan: Bplm 07361 E Assessee By Shri Sudhir Padliya, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.03.2023

section 9 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as well as a Permanent-Establishment (“PE”) in terms of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAA) which obligated the assessee to deduct TDS u/s 195 but the assessee has not deducted. Accordingly, Ld. AO show- caused the assessee u/s 201(1

M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., UNIT SATNA CEMENT WORKS,SATNA vs. ITO (IT & TP), BHOPAL

In the result, Assessee’s appeals

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

195 were as follows: S. No. 1. Entity (Country) 2. Amount of 3. Whether Period of Supervisio TDS Rendering n Charges Deducted Services (Rs.) Polysius AG (Germany) Euro Yes 113 days 1 141,022.38 Shenyang 2 Heavy USD Yes 106 days Machinery Co. Ltd. 106,000 (China) 3 PARR Instruments No installation/supervisory services Company (USA) availed from the vendor

M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., UNIT SATNA CEMENT WORKS,SATNA vs. ITO (IT & TP), BHOPAL

In the result, Assessee’s appeals

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

195 were as follows: S. No. 1. Entity (Country) 2. Amount of 3. Whether Period of Supervisio TDS Rendering n Charges Deducted Services (Rs.) Polysius AG (Germany) Euro Yes 113 days 1 141,022.38 Shenyang 2 Heavy USD Yes 106 days Machinery Co. Ltd. 106,000 (China) 3 PARR Instruments No installation/supervisory services Company (USA) availed from the vendor

M/S TESLA TRANSFORMERS ,BHOPAL vs. ITO(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, BHOPAL

In the result, Ground Numbers 1 to 4 of assessee’s appeal are dismissed

TDS default u/s 195 amounting to Rs.27,66,720/- u/s 201(1) of the Act. 3. That the ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that in the transaction of import of raw- material valuing Rs.4,02,92,017/- from foreign companies , income accrued under the provisions of section

DEEPAK PAREKH,USA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CPC, BENGALURU

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

TDS deducted in the wife's name to the assessee, after verifying that it has not been claimed by the wife and no double credit is given.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "143(1)", "139(5)", "154", "37BA(2)", "1941A", "195

ITO 2(5), INDORE vs. M/S I PARADISE INFOMEDIA P LTD., INDORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

TDS under Section 195 of the Act and the consequent ITA No.813/Ind/2018 (ITO vs. M/s. I Paradise Infomedia P. Ltd.) A.Y.– 2013-14 - 4 - deletion of addition made by the First Appellate Authority is found to be correct and without any ambiguity so as to warrant interference. Thus, the appeal preferred by the Revenue is found to be devoid

M/S D & H SECHERON ELECTRODES PVT. LTD,INIDORE vs. ITO (IT & TP), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2016-17 M/S. D&H Secheron Electrodes Ito (It & Tp), Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Bhopal 44-46, Industries Estate, Kila Maidan, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Bpld00066D

195 of the Act Section 5 of the Act and Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act. He also made submissions for explaining the words “managerial, ‘technical’ and ‘consultancy’. He also referred to Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and South Korea under section 90 of the I.T. Act including Article 12, 14 and 15 of this DTAA