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

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

249 (Del.) in which it was held as under : Both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal have returned a concurrent and clear finding of fact that the notice under s. 143(2) was issued on 23rd March, 2000 and since the return was filed on 27th March, 2000, the notice was not a valid one and, therefore, the assessment completed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, INDORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

249 (Delhi –Tribunal) 10 Order dated 13/05/2020 passed in case of Bhariya Kissan 78-86 Chartitable Club Trust, Roorkee v. The Income Tax officer Exemptions (Dehradun) by Hon’ble ITAT Dehradun Bench) 13. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us and carefully gone through the submissions made by Ld. Counsel for the assessee

THE DCIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, BHOPAL vs. M/S. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

249 (Delhi –Tribunal) 10 Order dated 13/05/2020 passed in case of Bhariya Kissan 78-86 Chartitable Club Trust, Roorkee v. The Income Tax officer Exemptions (Dehradun) by Hon’ble ITAT Dehradun Bench) 13. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us and carefully gone through the submissions made by Ld. Counsel for the assessee

SMT. SHWETA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. THE PR. CIT-2, INDORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2014-15

249 416458 nt:quity 16.01201 04.03.201 22500 441450 2 eShares cPf sunrise ln1sian 13,239 23,43,676 22,10,43 Total 1,20,00 ~ You had claimed Rs.22,10,437/- as exempt L.T.C.G. in return] income filed by you . The claim has been derived from the alleged investment in the share of M/ s Sunrise Asian Limited., which

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

section 9(1)(vi) and section 9(1)(vii)of the Act as well as under India- Austria Tax Treaty on which TDS was not made hence, the AO has rightly disallowed the same under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6.5. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the material available

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

section 9(1)(vi) and section 9(1)(vii)of the Act as well as under India- Austria Tax Treaty on which TDS was not made hence, the AO has rightly disallowed the same under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6.5. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the material available

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

section 9(1)(vi) and section 9(1)(vii)of the Act as well as under India- Austria Tax Treaty on which TDS was not made hence, the AO has rightly disallowed the same under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6.5. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the material available

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

section 9(1)(vi) and section 9(1)(vii)of the Act as well as under India- Austria Tax Treaty on which TDS was not made hence, the AO has rightly disallowed the same under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6.5. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the material available

M/S. SANWARIA AGROILS LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

249 referred to in Tata Consultancy Services v. State of A.P. [2004] 271 ITR 401 , it was held that the electricity was capable of abstraction, consumption and use which, if done dishonestly was punishable u/s. 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. It was held that electricity energy would be transmitted, transferred, delivered, stored and possessed etc. in the same

THED CIT ,CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL vs. M/S DILIP BUILDCON LTD, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

TDS certificate tax at source was deducted u/s. 194C being applicable to a contractor cannot be the reason for treating a genuine developer as a contractor. The same cannot detract the assessee from the position of being a developer; nor should it debar the assessee from claiming deduction under section 80- IA(4). Therefore, the assessee, who is only engaged

DILIP BUILDCON LTD.,BHOPAL vs. DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

TDS certificate tax at source was deducted u/s. 194C being applicable to a contractor cannot be the reason for treating a genuine developer as a contractor. The same cannot detract the assessee from the position of being a developer; nor should it debar the assessee from claiming deduction under section 80- IA(4). Therefore, the assessee, who is only engaged

DILIP BUILDCON LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

TDS certificate tax at source was deducted u/s. 194C being applicable to a contractor cannot be the reason for treating a genuine developer as a contractor. The same cannot detract the assessee from the position of being a developer; nor should it debar the assessee from claiming deduction under section 80- IA(4). Therefore, the assessee, who is only engaged

DILIP BUILDCON LTD.,BHOPAL vs. DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

TDS certificate tax at source was deducted u/s. 194C being applicable to a contractor cannot be the reason for treating a genuine developer as a contractor. The same cannot detract the assessee from the position of being a developer; nor should it debar the assessee from claiming deduction under section 80- IA(4). Therefore, the assessee, who is only engaged

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL vs. DILIP BUILDCON LIMITED, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

TDS certificate tax at source was deducted u/s. 194C being applicable to a contractor cannot be the reason for treating a genuine developer as a contractor. The same cannot detract the assessee from the position of being a developer; nor should it debar the assessee from claiming deduction under section 80- IA(4). Therefore, the assessee, who is only engaged

DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL vs. DILIP BUILDCON LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

TDS certificate tax at source was deducted u/s. 194C being applicable to a contractor cannot be the reason for treating a genuine developer as a contractor. The same cannot detract the assessee from the position of being a developer; nor should it debar the assessee from claiming deduction under section 80- IA(4). Therefore, the assessee, who is only engaged