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

Appeals are allowed

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

Section 194J of the Act is not attracted in the case of "revenue sharing contract". According to Respondent No.1, in such contracts there is only sharing of revenue and, therefore, payments by revenue sharing cannot constitute "fees" under Section 194J of the Act. This submission is not accepted by the Department. We leave it there because this submission

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

Appeals are allowed

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

Section 194J of the Act is not attracted in the case of "revenue sharing contract". According to Respondent No.1, in such contracts there is only sharing of revenue and, therefore, payments by revenue sharing cannot constitute "fees" under Section 194J of the Act. This submission is not accepted by the Department. We leave it there because this submission

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)

2 to s. 9(1)(vii) would also have to be construed as involving a human element • The expression 'technical service' would have reference to only technical service rendered by a human. Page 36 of 65 ITA No. 415/Ind/2014 & 265/Ind/2018 – AY 2010-11 M/s Vodafone Idea Ltd. (Formerly M/s Idea Cellular Ltd.) • MTNL or other companies do not provide

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)

2 to s. 9(1)(vii) would also have to be construed as involving a human element • The expression 'technical service' would have reference to only technical service rendered by a human. Page 36 of 65 ITA No. 415/Ind/2014 & 265/Ind/2018 – AY 2010-11 M/s Vodafone Idea Ltd. (Formerly M/s Idea Cellular Ltd.) • MTNL or other companies do not provide

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

47,896/- Mumbai M/s. 537, Commodity AADCD3215G 4,20,00,000 Interest 4,42,50,957 Dhankuber Exchange Building, Rs.2501063/- Exports Pvt. APMC Market, Sec. (-) TDS Ltd. – 19, Vaashi, Navi 2,50,106/- Mumbai (ACIT vs. Sarthak Innovation (P) Ltd. 21. The copies of loan confirmation, balance sheet, acknowledgement, Income Tax Return of these parties for the year under consideration

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

47,896/- Mumbai M/s. 537, Commodity AADCD3215G 4,20,00,000 Interest 4,42,50,957 Dhankuber Exchange Building, Rs.2501063/- Exports Pvt. APMC Market, Sec. (-) TDS Ltd. – 19, Vaashi, Navi 2,50,106/- Mumbai (ACIT vs. Sarthak Innovation (P) Ltd. 21. The copies of loan confirmation, balance sheet, acknowledgement, Income Tax Return of these parties for the year under consideration

DCIT CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

47,896/- Mumbai M/s. 537, Commodity AADCD3215G 4,20,00,000 Interest 4,42,50,957 Dhankuber Exchange Building, Rs.2501063/- Exports Pvt. APMC Market, Sec. (-) TDS Ltd. – 19, Vaashi, Navi 2,50,106/- Mumbai (ACIT vs. Sarthak Innovation (P) Ltd. 21. The copies of loan confirmation, balance sheet, acknowledgement, Income Tax Return of these parties for the year under consideration

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

section 5(2)(b) r.w.r.t. 9(1) of the Act in place of DTAA provisions and secondly the Ld. Assessing Officer erred in holding that the non-resident were having a Permanent Establishment in India without bringing any thing on record to establish that dependent Abench PE existed in light of the Article 5 & 6 of DTAA. 7. Ld. Counsel

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

section 5(2)(b) r.w.r.t. 9(1) of the Act in place of DTAA provisions and secondly the Ld. Assessing Officer erred in holding that the non-resident were having a Permanent Establishment in India without bringing any thing on record to establish that dependent Abench PE existed in light of the Article 5 & 6 of DTAA. 7. Ld. Counsel

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. SHRI RITESH JAIN, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani & It(Ss)Ano.14/Ind/2022 (Assesssment Year 2011-12

47 to 50). We further find that no where any shareholder company was found to be fictitious or non existing rather all share holder companies are duly found to be existing as summons have been served on them. ITA.No.3555/Del./2015 Shri Ajay Sharma, Ghaziabad. (Refer Honble Supreme court in Orissa Corporation Page 23 of 116 ITANo.794/Ind/2018

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

TDS u/s 201(1A) 01 Payment to M/s 38,093 6,349 2,616 654 Buhler AG Switzerland 02 Payment to M/s 2,83,438 47,240 19,463 3,892 Buhler AG ITANo.743 & 744/Ind/2018 Sanghvi Foods Private Limited Switzerland Total 22079 4546 05] That on perusal of the Purchase Order and Invoices Your Honours will appreciate that Assessee company

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

TDS u/s 201(1A) 01 Payment to M/s 38,093 6,349 2,616 654 Buhler AG Switzerland 02 Payment to M/s 2,83,438 47,240 19,463 3,892 Buhler AG ITANo.743 & 744/Ind/2018 Sanghvi Foods Private Limited Switzerland Total 22079 4546 05] That on perusal of the Purchase Order and Invoices Your Honours will appreciate that Assessee company

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

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

TDS certificate in the name of the other person. The proviso to Rule 37BA(2) is just a procedural aspect of giving effect to the mandate of section 199 for allowing credit to the other person in whose hands the income is chargeable to tax. The entire purpose of this exercise of allowing credit to the other person

GURVINDER KAUR BHATIA ,INDORE vs. PR. CIT-2, INDORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(s) in ITANo

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Years: 2015-16

TDS @ 2% u/s 194DA of Income Tax Act. After verifying the claim of the assessee through various documentary evidences produced by the assesse and computation of income, replies dated 15.06.2017, 09.10.2017, 23.10.2017 and 17.11.2017 and various judicial pronouncements Ld. AO formed the opinion that the said claim of the assessee is bonafide. Thus, looking to the facts of the case

HARLEEN KAUR BHATIA,INDORE vs. PR. CIT-2, INDORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(s) in ITANo

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Years: 2015-16

TDS @ 2% u/s 194DA of Income Tax Act. After verifying the claim of the assessee through various documentary evidences produced by the assesse and computation of income, replies dated 15.06.2017, 09.10.2017, 23.10.2017 and 17.11.2017 and various judicial pronouncements Ld. AO formed the opinion that the said claim of the assessee is bonafide. Thus, looking to the facts of the case

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

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

47,750/- which had been considered by the lower-authorities as FTS. (ii) The lower authorities have wrongly held for grossing up of the amount of TDS u/s 195A. ITA No. 551/Ind/2018 – FY 2014-15 (AY 2015-16): (i) The lower-authorities have wrongly treated the assessee as defaulter for non- deduction of tax at source (TDS

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

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

47,750/- which had been considered by the lower-authorities as FTS. (ii) The lower authorities have wrongly held for grossing up of the amount of TDS u/s 195A. ITA No. 551/Ind/2018 – FY 2014-15 (AY 2015-16): (i) The lower-authorities have wrongly treated the assessee as defaulter for non- deduction of tax at source (TDS

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

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

47,750/- which had been considered by the lower-authorities as FTS. (ii) The lower authorities have wrongly held for grossing up of the amount of TDS u/s 195A. ITA No. 551/Ind/2018 – FY 2014-15 (AY 2015-16): (i) The lower-authorities have wrongly treated the assessee as defaulter for non- deduction of tax at source (TDS