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

26 of 55 [[[ ITA No. 109 to 111/Ind/2023 – AYs 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2013-14 M/s Idea Cellular Ltd., Indore. Explanation 2 below section 9(1)(vi) would apply if we were to also interpret the same provision. But article 12.3(a) is worded as below : "The term ‘royalties’ as used in this article means : (a)payments of any kind

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

Appeals are allowed

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

26 of 55 [[[ ITA No. 109 to 111/Ind/2023 – AYs 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2013-14 M/s Idea Cellular Ltd., Indore. Explanation 2 below section 9(1)(vi) would apply if we were to also interpret the same provision. But article 12.3(a) is worded as below : "The term ‘royalties’ as used in this article means : (a)payments of any kind

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

Appeals are allowed

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

26 of 55 [[[ ITA No. 109 to 111/Ind/2023 – AYs 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2013-14 M/s Idea Cellular Ltd., Indore. Explanation 2 below section 9(1)(vi) would apply if we were to also interpret the same provision. But article 12.3(a) is worded as below : "The term ‘royalties’ as used in this article means : (a)payments of any kind

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), 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. Issue No. 1 WHETHER THE PAYMENT OF IUC BY ASSESSEE TO FTOS ARE TAXABLE AS FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES U/S. 9(1)(vii) OF THE ACT. (As the Section 9(1)(vii) has already been extracted

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), 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. Issue No. 1 WHETHER THE PAYMENT OF IUC BY ASSESSEE TO FTOS ARE TAXABLE AS FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES U/S. 9(1)(vii) OF THE ACT. (As the Section 9(1)(vii) has already been extracted

MADHYA PRADESH TODAY MEDIA LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ITO-TDS, INDORE

In the result, the ground of appeal is partly allowed

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

TDS statements within the time specified in sub-section (3) of section 200 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 and consequently, no late fee under s.234E was leviable. 5.That, the appellant further craves leave to add, alter and/or amend any of the foregoing grounds of appeal as and when considered necessary. Assessment Year 2012-13 (26

MADHYA PRADESH TODAY MEDIA LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ITO-TDS, INDORE

In the result, the ground of appeal is partly allowed

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

TDS statements within the time specified in sub-section (3) of section 200 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 and consequently, no late fee under s.234E was leviable. 5.That, the appellant further craves leave to add, alter and/or amend any of the foregoing grounds of appeal as and when considered necessary. Assessment Year 2012-13 (26

MADHYA PRADESH TODAY MEDIA LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ITO-TDS, INDORE

In the result, the ground of appeal is partly allowed

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

TDS statements within the time specified in sub-section (3) of section 200 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 and consequently, no late fee under s.234E was leviable. 5.That, the appellant further craves leave to add, alter and/or amend any of the foregoing grounds of appeal as and when considered necessary. Assessment Year 2012-13 (26

MADHYA PRADESH TODAY MEDIA LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ITO-TDS, INDORE

In the result, the ground of appeal is partly allowed

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

TDS statements within the time specified in sub-section (3) of section 200 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 and consequently, no late fee under s.234E was leviable. 5.That, the appellant further craves leave to add, alter and/or amend any of the foregoing grounds of appeal as and when considered necessary. Assessment Year 2012-13 (26

MADHYA PRADESH TODAY MEDIA LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ITO-TDS, INDORE

In the result, the ground of appeal is partly allowed

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

TDS statements within the time specified in sub-section (3) of section 200 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 and consequently, no late fee under s.234E was leviable. 5.That, the appellant further craves leave to add, alter and/or amend any of the foregoing grounds of appeal as and when considered necessary. Assessment Year 2012-13 (26

MADHYA PRADESH TODAY MEDIA LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ITO-TDS, INDORE

In the result, the ground of appeal is partly allowed

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

TDS statements within the time specified in sub-section (3) of section 200 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 and consequently, no late fee under s.234E was leviable. 5.That, the appellant further craves leave to add, alter and/or amend any of the foregoing grounds of appeal as and when considered necessary. Assessment Year 2012-13 (26

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. 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 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 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