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

TDS) v. Reliance Engineering Associates Pvt. Ltd. [2012] 80 CCH 113 (Guj) held that it is well-settled law that where two interpretations are possible, the one M/s. Sanwaria Agroil Ltd. / I.T.A. No. 620/Ind/2013 /A.Y.:07-08 Page 32 of 34 which is favourable to the assessee should be adopted. Appeal dismissed. 40. In view of above, we find that

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

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

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 26.11.2019, the assessee has also raised

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

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

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 26.11.2019, the assessee has also raised

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

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

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 26.11.2019, the assessee has also raised

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

Appeals are allowed

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

Section 194J of the Act is not attracted in the case of "revenue sharing contract". According to Respondent No.1, in such contracts there is only sharing of revenue and, therefore, payments by revenue sharing cannot constitute "fees" under Section 194J of the Act. This submission is not accepted by the Department. We leave it there because this submission

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

Appeals are allowed

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

Section 194J of the Act is not attracted in the case of "revenue sharing contract". According to Respondent No.1, in such contracts there is only sharing of revenue and, therefore, payments by revenue sharing cannot constitute "fees" under Section 194J of the Act. This submission is not accepted by the Department. We leave it there because this submission

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

Appeals are allowed

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

Section 194J of the Act is not attracted in the case of "revenue sharing contract". According to Respondent No.1, in such contracts there is only sharing of revenue and, therefore, payments by revenue sharing cannot constitute "fees" under Section 194J of the Act. This submission is not accepted by the Department. We leave it there because this submission

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. 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

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

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

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

ADIM JATI SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI MYDT JOBAT,ALIRAJPUR vs. FACELESS ASSESSMENT OFFICER, ALIRAJPUR

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiadim Jati Sewa Sahkari Samiti National Faceless बनाम/ Mydt., Assessment Centre Vs. 01, Jobat, Jobat, Delhi Alirajpur (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaala0577E Assessee By Shri P.D. Nagar, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr

TDS from the interest other than interest on securities. Therefore it cannot be said that Page 10 of 34 Adim Jati Sewa Sahkari Samiti Mydt. cooperative banks are excluded from the definition of cooperative societies by such an amendment. [Para 29] Moreover, as reliance placed on the aforesaid decision for applicability of section

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 @ 2% u/s 194DA of Income Tax Act. After verifying the claim of the assessee through various documentary evidences produced by the assesse and computation of income, replies dated 15.06.2017, 09.10.2017, 23.10.2017 and 17.11.2017 and various judicial pronouncements Ld. AO formed the opinion that the said claim of the assessee is bonafide. Thus, looking to the facts of the case

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 @ 2% u/s 194DA of Income Tax Act. After verifying the claim of the assessee through various documentary evidences produced by the assesse and computation of income, replies dated 15.06.2017, 09.10.2017, 23.10.2017 and 17.11.2017 and various judicial pronouncements Ld. AO formed the opinion that the said claim of the assessee is bonafide. Thus, looking to the facts of the case

SHRI JAGDISH KUMAR GULIA,BHOPAL vs. THRE ASSTT.DIRECTORE OF INCOME TAX ,CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed

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

TDS of Rs.72,87,370/- was allowed and the refund was determined at Rs.11,61,797/-. 7. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as 'CIT(A)'). The CIT(A), by order dated 18.12.2023, dismissed the appeal. The assessee thereupon approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by the impugned order dated

SUCH MEDIA PUBLICATION P LTD ,CIT (A) NFAC DELHI vs. NFAC DELHI, DELHI

In the result, this appeal is dismissed

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

TDS of Rs.72,87,370/- was allowed and the refund was determined at Rs.11,61,797/-. 7. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as 'CIT(A)'). The CIT(A), by order dated 18.12.2023, dismissed the appeal. The assessee thereupon approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by the impugned order dated