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

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

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

TDS under that section arises only if the assessee pays or credits “any sum chargeable under the provisions of this act”. Thereafter, he carried us to section 9(1)(i) which prescribes the chargeability/taxability of ‘business income’ in India. He submitted that in the present case, section 9(1)(i) is not applicable for the certain reasons, namely

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

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

TDS under that section arises only if the assessee pays or credits “any sum chargeable under the provisions of this act”. Thereafter, he carried us to section 9(1)(i) which prescribes the chargeability/taxability of ‘business income’ in India. He submitted that in the present case, section 9(1)(i) is not applicable for the certain reasons, namely

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

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

TDS under that section arises only if the assessee pays or credits “any sum chargeable under the provisions of this act”. Thereafter, he carried us to section 9(1)(i) which prescribes the chargeability/taxability of ‘business income’ in India. He submitted that in the present case, section 9(1)(i) is not applicable for the certain reasons, namely

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

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 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)

TDS was deductible by M/s. Bharti Cellular Limited when it paid interconnect charges/access/port charges to BSNL? For that purpose, we are required to examine the meaning of the words "fees for technical services" under Section 194J read with clause (b) of the Explanation to Section 194J of the Income Tax Act, 1961, [`Act', for short] which, inter alia, states that

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)

TDS was deductible by M/s. Bharti Cellular Limited when it paid interconnect charges/access/port charges to BSNL? For that purpose, we are required to examine the meaning of the words "fees for technical services" under Section 194J read with clause (b) of the Explanation to Section 194J of the Income Tax Act, 1961, [`Act', for short] which, inter alia, states that

KUSUMLATA GARG,INDORE vs. DCIT ACIT 3 (1) INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

TDS was made by tenant\nto make the compliance of income-tax provisions but the fact is such that\nthe tenant is not paying rent to assessee. He submitted that as per\nExplanation to section 23

THE ACIT 3(2), INDORE vs. M/S. SIMRAN DEVELOPERS, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ito-3(2), M/S. Simran Developers Indore 402, Mark Building, बनाम/ Saket Square, Vs. Indore (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Ackfs 1946 B Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Assessee By None Date Of Hearing 16.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.04.2023

23,26,323/- on account of disallowance out of expenses. The AO made the disallowance @ 10% out of the development expenses. The AO made the disallowance without any basis. The appellant firm is a Real Estate Developer. Being the real estate work, the appellant engaged the labour and contractors for doing the work. TDS was deducted on the payments made

THE CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA SAMNAPUR BR. ,RAISEN vs. DCIT (CPC)-TDS GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all 165 appeals at the instance of assessee(s) are allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

TDS return/statement because enabling clause (c) of sub- section (1) of section 200A have been inserted w.e.f. 01.06.2015 and before this amendment w.e.f 01.06.2015 there was no enabling provision in the Act 23

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA SULTANIA INFRA BR. ,BHOPAL vs. DCIT (CPC)-TDS, GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all 165 appeals at the instance of assessee(s) are allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

TDS return/statement because enabling clause (c) of sub- section (1) of section 200A have been inserted w.e.f. 01.06.2015 and before this amendment w.e.f 01.06.2015 there was no enabling provision in the Act 23

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA SULTANIA INFRA BR. ,BHOPAL vs. DCIT (CPC)-TDS, GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all 165 appeals at the instance of assessee(s) are allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

TDS return/statement because enabling clause (c) of sub- section (1) of section 200A have been inserted w.e.f. 01.06.2015 and before this amendment w.e.f 01.06.2015 there was no enabling provision in the Act 23

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA ASHTA BHOPAL BR.,BHOPAL vs. DCIT (CPC)-TDS, GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all 165 appeals at the instance of assessee(s) are allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

TDS return/statement because enabling clause (c) of sub- section (1) of section 200A have been inserted w.e.f. 01.06.2015 and before this amendment w.e.f 01.06.2015 there was no enabling provision in the Act 23

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA DHABLA BR. ,SEHORE vs. DCIT (CPC)-TDS, GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all 165 appeals at the instance of assessee(s) are allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

TDS return/statement because enabling clause (c) of sub- section (1) of section 200A have been inserted w.e.f. 01.06.2015 and before this amendment w.e.f 01.06.2015 there was no enabling provision in the Act 23

THE CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA ARERA COLONY BR. ,BHOPAL vs. DCIT (CPC)-TDS GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all 165 appeals at the instance of assessee(s) are allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

TDS return/statement because enabling clause (c) of sub- section (1) of section 200A have been inserted w.e.f. 01.06.2015 and before this amendment w.e.f 01.06.2015 there was no enabling provision in the Act 23

THE CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA SAMNAPUR BR. ,RAISEN vs. DCIT (CPC)-TDS GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all 165 appeals at the instance of assessee(s) are allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

TDS return/statement because enabling clause (c) of sub- section (1) of section 200A have been inserted w.e.f. 01.06.2015 and before this amendment w.e.f 01.06.2015 there was no enabling provision in the Act 23