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

In the result common ground no

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

SECTION 271C OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO Rs.7,28,75,033/-: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the order passed by the TDS

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

In the result common ground no

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

SECTION 271C OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO Rs.7,28,75,033/-: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the order passed by the TDS

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

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

TDS with interest in terms of section 201 from assessee but it is not at all a case where the assessee has agreed under any agreement or arrangement to bear the tax liability of non-resident. Ld. AR submitted that the non-residents are liable to their own tax liabilities on impugned payments, if any, in India. Therefore, in such

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

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

TDS with interest in terms of section 201 from assessee but it is not at all a case where the assessee has agreed under any agreement or arrangement to bear the tax liability of non-resident. Ld. AR submitted that the non-residents are liable to their own tax liabilities on impugned payments, if any, in India. Therefore, in such

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

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

TDS with interest in terms of section 201 from assessee but it is not at all a case where the assessee has agreed under any agreement or arrangement to bear the tax liability of non-resident. Ld. AR submitted that the non-residents are liable to their own tax liabilities on impugned payments, if any, in India. Therefore, in such

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

28 ITJ 139 (Trib.-Indore) 3. M/s Gupta Spinning Mills vs. CIT in ITANo.3398/Del/2010 4. CIT vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282 (SC) 5. CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108(Bom) 6.CIT vs. R.K. Construction Co. 313 ITR 65 (Gujarat) 7. CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502(Gujarat) 8.CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto

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

28 ITJ 139 (Trib.-Indore) 3. M/s Gupta Spinning Mills vs. CIT in ITANo.3398/Del/2010 4. CIT vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282 (SC) 5. CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108(Bom) 6.CIT vs. R.K. Construction Co. 313 ITR 65 (Gujarat) 7. CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502(Gujarat) 8.CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto

PRAHLAD DAS GOYAL,BHOPAL vs. DCIT - 1(1) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2016-17 Prahlad Das Goyal, Dcit/Acit 1(1) 18, Shyamla Hills, Bhopal बनाम/ Bhopal Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Abbpg3494L Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 31.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04.08.2025

28 on principles of commercial accounting. The payments made for purchases would also be covered by the word 'expenditure' and such payments can be disallowed if they are made in cash in the sums exceeding the amount specified under section 40A(3). We have earlier observed that Rule 6DD has to be read along with Section 40A(3). The Rule

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

Appeals are allowed

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

TDS) reported in (2016) 67 taxmann.com 223. The issue considered therein was in respect of payment towards call interconnectivity charged for call transmission on foreign network. The Tribunal therein, on applying ratios pronounced in the above referred decisions, held it not as ‘Royalty’. Therefore in our opinion, the Payments made by the assessee in lieu of services provides

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

Appeals are allowed

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

TDS) reported in (2016) 67 taxmann.com 223. The issue considered therein was in respect of payment towards call interconnectivity charged for call transmission on foreign network. The Tribunal therein, on applying ratios pronounced in the above referred decisions, held it not as ‘Royalty’. Therefore in our opinion, the Payments made by the assessee in lieu of services provides

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

Appeals are allowed

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

TDS) reported in (2016) 67 taxmann.com 223. The issue considered therein was in respect of payment towards call interconnectivity charged for call transmission on foreign network. The Tribunal therein, on applying ratios pronounced in the above referred decisions, held it not as ‘Royalty’. Therefore in our opinion, the Payments made by the assessee in lieu of services provides

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)

28 of 65 ITA No. 415/Ind/2014 & 265/Ind/2018 – AY 2010-11 M/s Vodafone Idea Ltd. (Formerly M/s Idea Cellular Ltd.) with Hongkong and hence the view taken by the Tribunal (supra) with regard to the clause (iii) of Explanation 2 below section 9(1)(vi) would apply if we were to also interpret the same provision. But article

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)

28 of 65 ITA No. 415/Ind/2014 & 265/Ind/2018 – AY 2010-11 M/s Vodafone Idea Ltd. (Formerly M/s Idea Cellular Ltd.) with Hongkong and hence the view taken by the Tribunal (supra) with regard to the clause (iii) of Explanation 2 below section 9(1)(vi) would apply if we were to also interpret the same provision. But article

PATWA ABHIKARAN P LTD,INDORE vs. ACIT- TDS-CPC , GHAZIABAD

In the result, this appeal is party allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

TDS of Rs. 57,640/- plus interest of Rs. 28,590/- thereon u/s 201 of the Act. 11. We straight-away refer the submission made by assessee during first- appeal which is noted by Ld. CIT(A) in his order, relevant portion is reproduced below: “….. Your Honour, according to the Ld. Income Tax Officer the amount paid to Hemant Kumar

PATWA ABHIKARAN P LTD,INDORE vs. ACIT- TDS-CPC , GHAZIABAD

In the result, this appeal is party allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

TDS of Rs. 57,640/- plus interest of Rs. 28,590/- thereon u/s 201 of the Act. 11. We straight-away refer the submission made by assessee during first- appeal which is noted by Ld. CIT(A) in his order, relevant portion is reproduced below: “….. Your Honour, according to the Ld. Income Tax Officer the amount paid to Hemant Kumar

PATWA ABHIKARAN P LTD,INDORE vs. ACIT- TDS-CPC , GHAZIABAD

In the result, this appeal is party allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

TDS of Rs. 57,640/- plus interest of Rs. 28,590/- thereon u/s 201 of the Act. 11. We straight-away refer the submission made by assessee during first- appeal which is noted by Ld. CIT(A) in his order, relevant portion is reproduced below: “….. Your Honour, according to the Ld. Income Tax Officer the amount paid to Hemant Kumar

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

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

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