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

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)

iii) of Explanation 2 below section 9(1)(vi) of the Act that the process involved, for which the payment is being made, should be a secret process. But in the view we have taken on the language employed by article 12.3(a) of the treaty coupled with the punctuation and the setting and surrounding words, the payment would

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)

iii) of Explanation 2 below section 9(1)(vi) of the Act that the process involved, for which the payment is being made, should be a secret process. But in the view we have taken on the language employed by article 12.3(a) of the treaty coupled with the punctuation and the setting and surrounding words, the payment would

SUPREME TRANSPORT COMPANY,INDORE vs. ITO TDS-II, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

section 200A where the date of filing of TDS statement and date of intimation are much prior to 1- 6-2015:- (i) Prakash Industries Ltd. v. DCIT [IT Appeal Nos.5865 to 5869 (Delhi) of 2016, dated 29-7-2019]; (ii) Ajvin Infotech (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [IT Appeal Nos. 2305 & 2306 (Delhi) of 2017, dated 4-3-2020]; (iii

SUPREME TRANSPORT COMPANY,INDORE vs. ITO TDS-II, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

section 200A where the date of filing of TDS statement and date of intimation are much prior to 1- 6-2015:- (i) Prakash Industries Ltd. v. DCIT [IT Appeal Nos.5865 to 5869 (Delhi) of 2016, dated 29-7-2019]; (ii) Ajvin Infotech (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [IT Appeal Nos. 2305 & 2306 (Delhi) of 2017, dated 4-3-2020]; (iii

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

iii) Date on which the Competent Officer issued show-cause notice to assessee u/s 274 – 29.10.2018 (iv) Date on which the penalty-orders were passed by Competent Officer – 28.03.2019 9. Then, Ld. AR referred the very same provision of section 275(1)(c) as analysed by Ld. CIT(A), re-produced in earlier para. Ld. AR explained that there

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

iii) Date on which the Competent Officer issued show-cause notice to assessee u/s 274 – 29.10.2018 (iv) Date on which the penalty-orders were passed by Competent Officer – 28.03.2019 9. Then, Ld. AR referred the very same provision of section 275(1)(c) as analysed by Ld. CIT(A), re-produced in earlier para. Ld. AR explained that there

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

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

iii) Lastly,Ld. AR relied upon decision of ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench in Marck Biosciences Ltd. Vs. ITO, ITA No. 203/Ahd/2014 order dated 28.03.2017 where it has been held that the taxability of “FTS” is attracted only when “make available” clause is satisfied. There is no quarrel with this settled proposition. But, when the Ld. AR raised this point, the Bench

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

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

iii) Lastly,Ld. AR relied upon decision of ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench in Marck Biosciences Ltd. Vs. ITO, ITA No. 203/Ahd/2014 order dated 28.03.2017 where it has been held that the taxability of “FTS” is attracted only when “make available” clause is satisfied. There is no quarrel with this settled proposition. But, when the Ld. AR raised this point, the Bench

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

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

iii) Lastly,Ld. AR relied upon decision of ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench in Marck Biosciences Ltd. Vs. ITO, ITA No. 203/Ahd/2014 order dated 28.03.2017 where it has been held that the taxability of “FTS” is attracted only when “make available” clause is satisfied. There is no quarrel with this settled proposition. But, when the Ld. AR raised this point, the Bench

SHRI SURENDRA SINGH BHATIA,INDORE vs. THE JCIT-3, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

TDS 2,62,79,228 14-09-2007 1,40,00,000 15-12-2007 5,00,00,000 15-12-2007 1,30,00,000 15-03-2008 1,63,00,000 18-09-2008 40,00,000 25-09-2008 17,00,000 27-09-2008 1,23,37,620 Total 13,76,16,848 11. That

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

26 of 34 allowed additional depreciation during the year under consideration i.e. A.Y. 08-09. The said amendment has been incorrectly interpreted by AO. The coordinated bench of Chennai Tribunal in case of ACIT Vs. M. Satish Kumar (2012) 19 ITR (Trib.) 646, case pertaining to A.Y. 08-09, has given a finding on such amendment and has held that

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 quarterly returns and Ld. CIT(A) confirming such levy of fee u/s 234E at Rs.1,02,750/- (24Q- II), Rs.96,722/(24Q-III) -, Rs.63,842/- (24 Q-IV), Rs. 1,21,903/- (26 Q-II), Rs.97,355/-(26 Q-III) and Rs.63,842/- (26 Q-IV) respectively ITANos. 574 to 579/Ind/2019 Madhya Pradesh Today Media Pvt. Ltd for Financial

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 quarterly returns and Ld. CIT(A) confirming such levy of fee u/s 234E at Rs.1,02,750/- (24Q- II), Rs.96,722/(24Q-III) -, Rs.63,842/- (24 Q-IV), Rs. 1,21,903/- (26 Q-II), Rs.97,355/-(26 Q-III) and Rs.63,842/- (26 Q-IV) respectively ITANos. 574 to 579/Ind/2019 Madhya Pradesh Today Media Pvt. Ltd for Financial

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 quarterly returns and Ld. CIT(A) confirming such levy of fee u/s 234E at Rs.1,02,750/- (24Q- II), Rs.96,722/(24Q-III) -, Rs.63,842/- (24 Q-IV), Rs. 1,21,903/- (26 Q-II), Rs.97,355/-(26 Q-III) and Rs.63,842/- (26 Q-IV) respectively ITANos. 574 to 579/Ind/2019 Madhya Pradesh Today Media Pvt. Ltd for Financial

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 quarterly returns and Ld. CIT(A) confirming such levy of fee u/s 234E at Rs.1,02,750/- (24Q- II), Rs.96,722/(24Q-III) -, Rs.63,842/- (24 Q-IV), Rs. 1,21,903/- (26 Q-II), Rs.97,355/-(26 Q-III) and Rs.63,842/- (26 Q-IV) respectively ITANos. 574 to 579/Ind/2019 Madhya Pradesh Today Media Pvt. Ltd for Financial

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 quarterly returns and Ld. CIT(A) confirming such levy of fee u/s 234E at Rs.1,02,750/- (24Q- II), Rs.96,722/(24Q-III) -, Rs.63,842/- (24 Q-IV), Rs. 1,21,903/- (26 Q-II), Rs.97,355/-(26 Q-III) and Rs.63,842/- (26 Q-IV) respectively ITANos. 574 to 579/Ind/2019 Madhya Pradesh Today Media Pvt. Ltd for Financial