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 9(1)(vi)/(vii) of the Act and also as per DTAA.” [Emphasis supplied] 13. Lastly, Ld. AR also relied upon the decision of ITAT, Delhi in Bharti Airtel Limited Vs. ITO(TDS), New Delhi, ITA No. 3593 to 3596/Del/2012 order dated 17.03.2016 holding that roaming charges neither constituted FTS nor Royalty, as under: Page

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

Appeals are allowed

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

section 9(1)(vi)/(vii) of the Act and also as per DTAA.” [Emphasis supplied] 13. Lastly, Ld. AR also relied upon the decision of ITAT, Delhi in Bharti Airtel Limited Vs. ITO(TDS), New Delhi, ITA No. 3593 to 3596/Del/2012 order dated 17.03.2016 holding that roaming charges neither constituted FTS nor Royalty, as under: Page

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

Appeals are allowed

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

section 9(1)(vi)/(vii) of the Act and also as per DTAA.” [Emphasis supplied] 13. Lastly, Ld. AR also relied upon the decision of ITAT, Delhi in Bharti Airtel Limited Vs. ITO(TDS), New Delhi, ITA No. 3593 to 3596/Del/2012 order dated 17.03.2016 holding that roaming charges neither constituted FTS nor Royalty, as under: Page

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)

section 9(1)(vi)/(vii) of the Act and also as per DTAA.” [Emphasis supplied] 13. Lastly, Ld. AR also relied upon the decision of ITAT, Delhi in Bharti Airtel Limited Vs. ITO(TDS), New Delhi, ITA No. 3593 to 3596/Del/2012 order dated 17.03.2016 holding that roaming charges neither constituted FTS nor Royalty, as under: “25

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)

section 9(1)(vi)/(vii) of the Act and also as per DTAA.” [Emphasis supplied] 13. Lastly, Ld. AR also relied upon the decision of ITAT, Delhi in Bharti Airtel Limited Vs. ITO(TDS), New Delhi, ITA No. 3593 to 3596/Del/2012 order dated 17.03.2016 holding that roaming charges neither constituted FTS nor Royalty, as under: “25

IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. JCIT TDS INDORE, INDORE

In the result common ground no

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

TDS Officer be directed to delete the aforesaid penalty of Rs. 6,71,51,801/-levied under section 271C of the Income Tax Act. GROUND II: GENERAL The Appellant craves leave to add to, amends and/ or alter the above ground of appeal at the time of hearing. 6. Briefly stated facts as culled out from the records are that

IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. JCIT TDS INDORE, INDORE

In the result common ground no

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

TDS Officer be directed to delete the aforesaid penalty of Rs. 6,71,51,801/-levied under section 271C of the Income Tax Act. GROUND II: GENERAL The Appellant craves leave to add to, amends and/ or alter the above ground of appeal at the time of hearing. 6. Briefly stated facts as culled out from the records are that

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 92C (2), it was claimed that the transaction is within tolerance band of +/-5% Margin. 2.6.1. We find that there is no dispute between TPO and the assessee as regards the method, which is CPM and benchmarking based on internal comparable. The only dispute whether the assessee has justified for considering the aggregation of all the projects with

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 92C (2), it was claimed that the transaction is within tolerance band of +/-5% Margin. 2.6.1. We find that there is no dispute between TPO and the assessee as regards the method, which is CPM and benchmarking based on internal comparable. The only dispute whether the assessee has justified for considering the aggregation of all the projects with

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 92C (2), it was claimed that the transaction is within tolerance band of +/-5% Margin. 2.6.1. We find that there is no dispute between TPO and the assessee as regards the method, which is CPM and benchmarking based on internal comparable. The only dispute whether the assessee has justified for considering the aggregation of all the projects with

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 92C (2), it was claimed that the transaction is within tolerance band of +/-5% Margin. 2.6.1. We find that there is no dispute between TPO and the assessee as regards the method, which is CPM and benchmarking based on internal comparable. The only dispute whether the assessee has justified for considering the aggregation of all the projects with

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, delayed payment of tax and ITR filed late and large refund claimed out of the self- assessment tax. The records show that the assessee has received payment on account of maturity of an insurance policy on which the tax has been deducted by the insurance company at the time of payment of maturity proceeds. The policy was a keyman

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, delayed payment of tax and ITR filed late and large refund claimed out of the self- assessment tax. The records show that the assessee has received payment on account of maturity of an insurance policy on which the tax has been deducted by the insurance company at the time of payment of maturity proceeds. The policy was a keyman

JEEVANDHARA HOSPITAL (P) LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD , INDORE

In the result, these three appeals

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing

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 u/s 200A of the Act for raising demand in respect of levy of fees u/s 234E of the Act. 15. We are of the considered opinion that

JEEVANDHARA HOSPITAL (P) LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD , INDORE

In the result, these three appeals

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing

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 u/s 200A of the Act for raising demand in respect of levy of fees u/s 234E of the Act. 15. We are of the considered opinion that

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

25,78,365 Singapore 4. Ld. AO observed that the assessee has made transactions through Indian agents of non-resident payees, as mentioned in last column of the above Table; therefore the non-residents payees were having a Business- Connection (“BC”) in India in terms of section 9 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as well as a Permanent-Establishment