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

CENTRAL INDIA ACADEMY ,DEWAS vs. THE4 PCIT-1,INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2018-19 Central India Academy, Pcit-1, 1, Bhopal Road, Indore बनाम/ Jetpura, Vs. Dewas (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaaac4091Q Assessee By Ms. Ruchira Negi, Adv. & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 14.03.2024

TDS out of rent payments, etc. to substantiate the genuineness of rent expenditure. But the rent-agreements were executed on stamp-papers of Rs. 500/- only and they were not registered with the Registration Department as per provisions of section 17 of Registration Act, 1908. The PCIT further noted that as per provisions of section 33

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshishri Vimal Todi, Additional Commissioner बनाम/ 501, Darshan Residency, Of Income-Tax, Vs. 104-105, Anand Bazar, Indore Indore

33 Shri Vimal Todi ITA Nos. 188/Ind/2024 - AY 2012-13 4. In the reply itself, the Assessee contended that the penalty proceedings were barred by limitation under Section 275(1)(c) of the Act, which reads as under: "275. Bar of limitation for imposing penalties (1) No order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be passed