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 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

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

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

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

DCIT 3 (1), BHOPAL vs. M/S NARMADA SWITCHGEAR P LTD , BHOPAL

Accordingly, this ground is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit-3(1) M/S Narmada Switchgear Bhopal Pvt. Ltd., बनाम/ Plot No.3, Industrial Estate, Govindpura Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aabcn0635N Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ca Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 09.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 03.02.2023

TDS and paid service tax where-ever it was necessary. The genuineness of expenditure incurred under the head sub-contracting cannot be doubted on the basis of some observation. There has to be some cogent evidences in this regard. In view of the above and decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. (supra

M/S DHAR AUTHOMOTIVE PVT. LTD,INDORE vs. DCIT TDS, INDORE

In the result, the second issue for lower/non-deduction of TCS

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

1) & 201 (1A) of the Act on the amounts paid by the assessee towards operation & maintenance of windmill machines. This issue is common for ITANos. 101, 102 & 103/Ind/2018. 5. Second issue only pertains to A.Y. 2013-14 in ITANo.101/Ind/2018 for lower deduction of tax collected at source. 6. Apropos to first common issue relating to rate of deduction

M/S DHAR AUTHOMOTIVE PVT. LTD,INDORE vs. DCIT TDS, INDORE

In the result, the second issue for lower/non-deduction of TCS

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

1) & 201 (1A) of the Act on the amounts paid by the assessee towards operation & maintenance of windmill machines. This issue is common for ITANos. 101, 102 & 103/Ind/2018. 5. Second issue only pertains to A.Y. 2013-14 in ITANo.101/Ind/2018 for lower deduction of tax collected at source. 6. Apropos to first common issue relating to rate of deduction

M/S DHAR AUTHOMOTIVE PVT. LTD,INDORE vs. DCIT TDS, INDORE

In the result, the second issue for lower/non-deduction of TCS

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

1) & 201 (1A) of the Act on the amounts paid by the assessee towards operation & maintenance of windmill machines. This issue is common for ITANos. 101, 102 & 103/Ind/2018. 5. Second issue only pertains to A.Y. 2013-14 in ITANo.101/Ind/2018 for lower deduction of tax collected at source. 6. Apropos to first common issue relating to rate of deduction

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

36 of 84 M/s. Andritz Hydro Pvt. Ltd v DCIT/ T.P.A. No.157/Ind/2015 &316/Ind/2016/ A.Y.:10-11&11-12 DCIT vs. Andritz Hydro Pvt. Ltd T.P. A. No. 265/Ind/2015 & 349/Ind/2016/A.Y.:10-11&11-12 marketing, design, production, assembly, quality control, testing, applications, installation and servicing. 2 ANDRITZ Mandideep GH-DE Design 830,114 Covered by Hydro support for Turbo exclusion GmbH

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

36 of 84 M/s. Andritz Hydro Pvt. Ltd v DCIT/ T.P.A. No.157/Ind/2015 &316/Ind/2016/ A.Y.:10-11&11-12 DCIT vs. Andritz Hydro Pvt. Ltd T.P. A. No. 265/Ind/2015 & 349/Ind/2016/A.Y.:10-11&11-12 marketing, design, production, assembly, quality control, testing, applications, installation and servicing. 2 ANDRITZ Mandideep GH-DE Design 830,114 Covered by Hydro support for Turbo exclusion GmbH

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

36 of 84 M/s. Andritz Hydro Pvt. Ltd v DCIT/ T.P.A. No.157/Ind/2015 &316/Ind/2016/ A.Y.:10-11&11-12 DCIT vs. Andritz Hydro Pvt. Ltd T.P. A. No. 265/Ind/2015 & 349/Ind/2016/A.Y.:10-11&11-12 marketing, design, production, assembly, quality control, testing, applications, installation and servicing. 2 ANDRITZ Mandideep GH-DE Design 830,114 Covered by Hydro support for Turbo exclusion GmbH

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

36 of 84 M/s. Andritz Hydro Pvt. Ltd v DCIT/ T.P.A. No.157/Ind/2015 &316/Ind/2016/ A.Y.:10-11&11-12 DCIT vs. Andritz Hydro Pvt. Ltd T.P. A. No. 265/Ind/2015 & 349/Ind/2016/A.Y.:10-11&11-12 marketing, design, production, assembly, quality control, testing, applications, installation and servicing. 2 ANDRITZ Mandideep GH-DE Design 830,114 Covered by Hydro support for Turbo exclusion GmbH

THE ITO-1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S FRIENDS ASSOCIATES, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniito-1(1) M/S Friends Associates Bhopal Shop No.32, G.T.B. Complex New Market, Vs. Bhopal

36. Ld. DR has submitted that the AO while passing the order u/s 154 of the Act dated 24.02.2022 made a disallowance of Rs.1,00,82,950/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. On appeal the Ld. CIT(A) has restricted the disallowance made by the AO u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act to 30% instead

DR. VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIR. 2(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

vii) Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi v/s International Travel House Ltd (2012) ITR 554 (Delhi) 26 ITA Nos.350 & 66/Ind/2017 & ITANo.57/Ind/2019 Vinod Bhandari (viii) Income Tax Officer V/s D.G Housing Projects Ltd (2002) 343 ITR 329 Delhi (ix) M/s Amira Pure Foods Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Bench Delhi) (x) M/s Narayan Tatu Rane (ITAT Mumbai Delhi) 21. Reliance is also placed