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. 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 31

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 31

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 31

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 was deductible by M/s. Bharti Cellular Limited when it paid interconnect charges/access/port charges to BSNL? For that purpose, we are required to examine the meaning of the words "fees for technical services" under Section 194J read with clause (b) of the Explanation to Section 194J of the Income Tax Act, 1961, [`Act', for short] which, inter alia, states that

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 was deductible by M/s. Bharti Cellular Limited when it paid interconnect charges/access/port charges to BSNL? For that purpose, we are required to examine the meaning of the words "fees for technical services" under Section 194J read with clause (b) of the Explanation to Section 194J of the Income Tax Act, 1961, [`Act', for short] which, inter alia, states 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

M/S. IDEA CELLUAR LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ITO (TDS)-II, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Vodafone Idea Ltd. Ito (Tds)-Ii (Formerly Known As M/S. Indore Idea Cellular Ltd.) Vs. 139-140 Electronics Complex Pardeshipura, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaacb 2100P Assessee By Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Shri Gagan Tiwari, Adv Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.11.2023

31 October 2013 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - II, Indore ['the CIT (A) + ] in connection with the order under section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Page 1 of 8 Idea Cellular Ltd.. Page 2 of 8 Income tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') passed by the Income Tax Officer (TDS

SHYAM PRATAP SINGH SHEKHAWAT,LUDHIANA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11 Shri Shyam Pratap Singh Shekhawat Vs Pr. Cit, Zonal Office, Bhai Bala Chowk, Bhopal 5Th Floor, Noble Enclave, Ludhiana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan Acaps0740F Revenue By Smt. Ashima Gupta, Cit Assessee By S/Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Advocates Date Of Hearing 22.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 26.07.2019 O R D E R

TDS claimed by the assessee and data available at 26AS. In compliance u/s 148 of the Act the assessee filed revised return of income at 4 Shyam Pratap Singh Shekhawat Rs.10,22,892/-. Additions were made by Ld. A.O but he failed to initiate penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Subsequently Ld. PCIT exercising power

DISTRICT ORGANISOR TRIBAL WELFARE BHOPAL,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)- 1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

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

section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act should be enforced after the tax deductor has satisfied the officer in charge of TDS that taxes have been paid by the deductee-assessee. The Ld. AR has further pointed out that the total amount was paid by the assessee during the year was only Rs.1,57,22,600/- however

DISTRICT ORGANISOR TRIBAL WELFARE BHOPAL,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)- 1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

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

section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act should be enforced after the tax deductor has satisfied the officer in charge of TDS that taxes have been paid by the deductee-assessee. The Ld. AR has further pointed out that the total amount was paid by the assessee during the year was only Rs.1,57,22,600/- however

DISTRICT ORGANISOR TRIBAL WELFARE BHOPAL,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)- 1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

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

section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act should be enforced after the tax deductor has satisfied the officer in charge of TDS that taxes have been paid by the deductee-assessee. The Ld. AR has further pointed out that the total amount was paid by the assessee during the year was only Rs.1,57,22,600/- however

DISTRICT ORGANISOR TRIBAL WELFARE BHOPAL,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)- 1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

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

section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act should be enforced after the tax deductor has satisfied the officer in charge of TDS that taxes have been paid by the deductee-assessee. The Ld. AR has further pointed out that the total amount was paid by the assessee during the year was only Rs.1,57,22,600/- however