M/S DAULATARAM ENGINEERING SERVICES P.LTD,MANDIDEEP vs. THE ADIT/CPC , BANGALORE

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

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

iii) Date on which the Competent Officer issued show-cause notice to assessee u/s 274 – 29.10.2018 Page 5 of 33 Shri Vimal Todi ITA Nos. 188/Ind/2024 - AY 2012-13 (iv) Date on which the penalty-orders were passed by Competent Officer – 28.03.2019 9. Then, Ld. AR referred the very same provision of section 275(1)(c) as analysed

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)

1)(vii) would also have to be construed as involving a human element • The expression 'technical service' would have reference to only technical service rendered by a human. Page 36 of 65 ITA No. 415/Ind/2014 & 265/Ind/2018 – AY 2010-11 M/s Vodafone Idea Ltd. (Formerly M/s Idea Cellular Ltd.) • MTNL or other companies do not provide any assistance to the assessee

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)

1)(vii) would also have to be construed as involving a human element • The expression 'technical service' would have reference to only technical service rendered by a human. Page 36 of 65 ITA No. 415/Ind/2014 & 265/Ind/2018 – AY 2010-11 M/s Vodafone Idea Ltd. (Formerly M/s Idea Cellular Ltd.) • MTNL or other companies do not provide any assistance to the assessee

SUPREME TRANSPORT COMPANY,INDORE vs. ITO TDS-II, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

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

36 (Appeal Memo). This is the 2nd round of litigation for the same issue. The brief facts to 2. understand these cases are as under: (i) The assessee/appellant filed Statements of TDS in Form No. 24Q for Q-2 & Q-3 of Financial Year 2012-13 after a delay of 81 days & 44 days respectively. The AO processed the Statements

SUPREME TRANSPORT COMPANY,INDORE vs. ITO TDS-II, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

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

36 (Appeal Memo). This is the 2nd round of litigation for the same issue. The brief facts to 2. understand these cases are as under: (i) The assessee/appellant filed Statements of TDS in Form No. 24Q for Q-2 & Q-3 of Financial Year 2012-13 after a delay of 81 days & 44 days respectively. The AO processed the Statements

HONOURABLE PACKAGING P LTD ,DHAR vs. THE DCIT 1(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of The Income Tax Return & Can It Be Disallowed In The 143(1).

tds (Tax 1422 1422 Double taxation Deducted at source) and tcs (Tax Collected at Source) 3 I.TA No. 348/IND/2022 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No Honourable packaging P. Ltd. vs. DCIT Interest on 120 Nil Payment related delay payment of to indirect tax. taxes Delay 892 Nil Normal payment charges Business Expenditures 2.3. The CPC not considered the above facts

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

Appeals are allowed

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

iii) Date on which the Competent Officer issued show-cause notice to assessee u/s 274 – 29.10.2018 (iv) Date on which the penalty-orders were passed by Competent Officer – 28.03.2019 9. Then, Ld. AR referred the very same provision of section 275(1)(c) as analysed by Ld. CIT(A), re-produced in earlier para. Ld. AR explained that there

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

Appeals are allowed

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

iii) Date on which the Competent Officer issued show-cause notice to assessee u/s 274 – 29.10.2018 (iv) Date on which the penalty-orders were passed by Competent Officer – 28.03.2019 9. Then, Ld. AR referred the very same provision of section 275(1)(c) as analysed by Ld. CIT(A), re-produced in earlier para. Ld. AR explained that there

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

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

section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act. This ground is dismissed.” We are in full agreement with the order of Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the assessee’s contention is rejected. Page 14 of 29 Permali Wallace P. Ltd., Bhopal vs. ITO, Bhopal, ITA Nos.550 to 552/Ind/2018 - A.Ys.2014-15 to 2016-17 (ii) Secondly, Ld. AR argued that

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

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

section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act. This ground is dismissed.” We are in full agreement with the order of Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the assessee’s contention is rejected. Page 14 of 29 Permali Wallace P. Ltd., Bhopal vs. ITO, Bhopal, ITA Nos.550 to 552/Ind/2018 - A.Ys.2014-15 to 2016-17 (ii) Secondly, Ld. AR argued that

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

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

section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act. This ground is dismissed.” We are in full agreement with the order of Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the assessee’s contention is rejected. Page 14 of 29 Permali Wallace P. Ltd., Bhopal vs. ITO, Bhopal, ITA Nos.550 to 552/Ind/2018 - A.Ys.2014-15 to 2016-17 (ii) Secondly, Ld. AR argued that

SHRI SURINDER SINGH BHATIA,INDORE vs. THE JCIT- 3, INDORE

Appeals are allowed/statistically allowed in terms indicated above

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2010-11 &

section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO observed that appellant has charged interest on “Advance given” at only 4 to 6% while it has paid interest on loans taken at 12%. Therefore, interest income of Rs.24,28,252/- at the rate of 4 to 6% is suppressed or diverted to sister concerns, as the interest

SHRI SURINDER SINGH BHATIA,INDORE vs. THE JCIT RANGE-3, INDORE

Appeals are allowed/statistically allowed in terms indicated above

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2010-11 &

section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO observed that appellant has charged interest on “Advance given” at only 4 to 6% while it has paid interest on loans taken at 12%. Therefore, interest income of Rs.24,28,252/- at the rate of 4 to 6% is suppressed or diverted to sister concerns, as the interest

HEMLATA PATEL,DEWAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , DEWAS

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purpose

TDS in UK on\nthe pension income. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of\nthe Act in which credit of foreign tax claimed u/s 90/90A is\ndisallowed & demand is raised after nullifying the refund\nclaimed in ROI. It is required to be noted that in Annexure\nFSI (As provided by Taxpayer) country code is USA, income\nfrom outside India