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

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

33,42,082/- = Rs. 23,34,208/- as profit made by Husk Hauskeller & Siegmann, Germany. (ii) The lower authorities have wrongly held for grossing up of the amount of TDS u/s 195A. Page 8 of 29 Permali Wallace P. Ltd., Bhopal vs. ITO, Bhopal, ITA Nos.550 to 552/Ind/2018 - A.Ys.2014-15 to 2016-17 Additional Issues: Vide application dated

M/S. STAR DELTA TRANSFORMERS LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO ( TDS) -2, BHOPAL

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

33,502/- on payment made on CPRI/ERDA. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that assessee was liable to pay interest u/s 201(1A) of Rs. 24,417/-.” ITA Nos.378to387/Ind/2022 M/s. Star Delta Transformers Ltd. vs. ITO Asst.Years –2013-14 to 2015-16(Q.1 to Q. 4) - 4 – 4. A TDS survey under Section

M/S. STAR DELTA TRANSFORMERS LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO ( TDS) -2, BHOPAL

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

33,502/- on payment made on CPRI/ERDA. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that assessee was liable to pay interest u/s 201(1A) of Rs. 24,417/-.” ITA Nos.378to387/Ind/2022 M/s. Star Delta Transformers Ltd. vs. ITO Asst.Years –2013-14 to 2015-16(Q.1 to Q. 4) - 4 – 4. A TDS survey under Section

M/S. STAR DELTA TRANSFORMERS LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO ( TDS) -2, BHOPAL

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

33,502/- on payment made on CPRI/ERDA. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that assessee was liable to pay interest u/s 201(1A) of Rs. 24,417/-.” ITA Nos.378to387/Ind/2022 M/s. Star Delta Transformers Ltd. vs. ITO Asst.Years –2013-14 to 2015-16(Q.1 to Q. 4) - 4 – 4. A TDS survey under Section

M/S. STAR DELTA TRANSFORMERS LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO ( TDS) -2, BHOPAL

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

33,502/- on payment made on CPRI/ERDA. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that assessee was liable to pay interest u/s 201(1A) of Rs. 24,417/-.” ITA Nos.378to387/Ind/2022 M/s. Star Delta Transformers Ltd. vs. ITO Asst.Years –2013-14 to 2015-16(Q.1 to Q. 4) - 4 – 4. A TDS survey under Section

M/S. STAR DELTA TRANSFORMERS LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO ( TDS) -2, BHOPAL

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

33,502/- on payment made on CPRI/ERDA. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that assessee was liable to pay interest u/s 201(1A) of Rs. 24,417/-.” ITA Nos.378to387/Ind/2022 M/s. Star Delta Transformers Ltd. vs. ITO Asst.Years –2013-14 to 2015-16(Q.1 to Q. 4) - 4 – 4. A TDS survey under Section

M/S. STAR DELTA TRANSFORMERS LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO ( TDS) -2, BHOPAL

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

33,502/- on payment made on CPRI/ERDA. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that assessee was liable to pay interest u/s 201(1A) of Rs. 24,417/-.” ITA Nos.378to387/Ind/2022 M/s. Star Delta Transformers Ltd. vs. ITO Asst.Years –2013-14 to 2015-16(Q.1 to Q. 4) - 4 – 4. A TDS survey under Section

M/S. STAR DELTA TRANSFORMERS LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO ( TDS) -2, BHOPAL

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

33,502/- on payment made on CPRI/ERDA. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that assessee was liable to pay interest u/s 201(1A) of Rs. 24,417/-.” ITA Nos.378to387/Ind/2022 M/s. Star Delta Transformers Ltd. vs. ITO Asst.Years –2013-14 to 2015-16(Q.1 to Q. 4) - 4 – 4. A TDS survey under Section

M/S. STAR DELTA TRANSFORMERS LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO ( TDS) -2, BHOPAL

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

33,502/- on payment made on CPRI/ERDA. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that assessee was liable to pay interest u/s 201(1A) of Rs. 24,417/-.” ITA Nos.378to387/Ind/2022 M/s. Star Delta Transformers Ltd. vs. ITO Asst.Years –2013-14 to 2015-16(Q.1 to Q. 4) - 4 – 4. A TDS survey under Section

M/S. STAR DELTA TRANSFORMERS LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO ( TDS) -2, BHOPAL

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

33,502/- on payment made on CPRI/ERDA. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that assessee was liable to pay interest u/s 201(1A) of Rs. 24,417/-.” ITA Nos.378to387/Ind/2022 M/s. Star Delta Transformers Ltd. vs. ITO Asst.Years –2013-14 to 2015-16(Q.1 to Q. 4) - 4 – 4. A TDS survey under Section

M/S. STAR DELTA TRANSFORMERS LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO ( TDS) -2, BHOPAL

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

33,502/- on payment made on CPRI/ERDA. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that assessee was liable to pay interest u/s 201(1A) of Rs. 24,417/-.” ITA Nos.378to387/Ind/2022 M/s. Star Delta Transformers Ltd. vs. ITO Asst.Years –2013-14 to 2015-16(Q.1 to Q. 4) - 4 – 4. A TDS survey under Section

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

Appeals are allowed

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

33 of 55 [[[ ITA No. 109 to 111/Ind/2023 – AYs 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2013-14 M/s Idea Cellular Ltd., Indore. The problem which arises in these cases is that there is no expert evidence from the side of the Department to show how human intervention takes place, particularly, during the process when calls take place, let us say, from Delhi

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

Appeals are allowed

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

33 of 55 [[[ ITA No. 109 to 111/Ind/2023 – AYs 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2013-14 M/s Idea Cellular Ltd., Indore. The problem which arises in these cases is that there is no expert evidence from the side of the Department to show how human intervention takes place, particularly, during the process when calls take place, let us say, from Delhi

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

Appeals are allowed

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

33 of 55 [[[ ITA No. 109 to 111/Ind/2023 – AYs 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2013-14 M/s Idea Cellular Ltd., Indore. The problem which arises in these cases is that there is no expert evidence from the side of the Department to show how human intervention takes place, particularly, during the process when calls take place, let us say, from Delhi

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)

33 of 65 ITA No. 415/Ind/2014 & 265/Ind/2018 – AY 2010-11 M/s Vodafone Idea Ltd. (Formerly M/s Idea Cellular Ltd.) “85. It is thus clear that the “person” mentioned in section 195 of the income Tax Act cannot be expected to do the impossible, namely, to apply the expanded definition of “royalty” inserted by explanation 4 to section

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)

33 of 65 ITA No. 415/Ind/2014 & 265/Ind/2018 – AY 2010-11 M/s Vodafone Idea Ltd. (Formerly M/s Idea Cellular Ltd.) “85. It is thus clear that the “person” mentioned in section 195 of the income Tax Act cannot be expected to do the impossible, namely, to apply the expanded definition of “royalty” inserted by explanation 4 to section

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