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

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 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

M/S. ARIHANT CHERITABLE TRUST,INDORE vs. THE ITO (TDS)-1, INDORE

In the result, we find no force in the ground of the Revenue, hence dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2015-16

43-48] “6. What meaning should be ascribed to the word "technical services" appearing in Explanation 2 to clause (vii) to Section 9(1) of the Act is the moot question. In CIT v. Bharti Cellular Ltd. [2011] 330 ITR 239/[2010] 193 Taxman 97 this Court has observed as follows: 'Right from 1979, various judgments of the High Courts

JARNALBEER SINGH BHATIA,KHANDWA vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL-3, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A Nos.19 To 23/Ind/2023 & Ita No.226/Ind/2023 Ays : 2013-14 To 2018-19 Jarnalbeer Singh Bhatia, Dcit/Acit, बनाम/ Bhatia Transport (Central)-3, Vs. Services, Indore. Old Indore Lines, Pandhana Road, Khandwa (Pan: Aixpb4565C) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

d) Without prejudice to the above, provisions of the section 194C(6) and 194C(7) need to be read together and once there is violation of section 194C disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) is attracted ? 5. The issues involved in various grounds raised by parties are identified and tabulated thus: No. Issue A.Y. Assessee’s Revenue’s Ground No. Ground

THE ACIT CENTRAL-3, INDORE vs. JARNALBEER SINGH BHATIA, KHANDWA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A Nos.19 To 23/Ind/2023 & Ita No.226/Ind/2023 Ays : 2013-14 To 2018-19 Jarnalbeer Singh Bhatia, Dcit/Acit, बनाम/ Bhatia Transport (Central)-3, Vs. Services, Indore. Old Indore Lines, Pandhana Road, Khandwa (Pan: Aixpb4565C) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

d) Without prejudice to the above, provisions of the section 194C(6) and 194C(7) need to be read together and once there is violation of section 194C disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) is attracted ? 5. The issues involved in various grounds raised by parties are identified and tabulated thus: No. Issue A.Y. Assessee’s Revenue’s Ground No. Ground

KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI,MANWAR DISTRICT DHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the ground of appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2015-16 Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Dcit-Cpc-Tds, Manwar Distt. Dhar Ghaziabad बनाम/ (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No. Bplk01589A Appellant By Shri Prakash Jain & Ms. Shreya Jain, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Singi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.10.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: The Above Captioned Appeal Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee For Assessment Year 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-I (In Short ‘Ld. Cit], Indore Dated 25.09.2017 Which Are Arising Out Of The Order U/S 200A Of The Income Tax Act 1961(In Short The ‘Act’) Dated

d) shall be granted to the deductor) The sub-section (2) of section 200A empower to CPC to authorized CPC Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti only far processing of statement and determine the tax payable or the refund due to the deductor which will be clear from the said sub-section. The same is reproduced herein under:- "For the purposes

THE AIT,ENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SURYA INFRAVENTURE P LTD, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

D E R PER BENCH This bunch of departmental appeals and COs filed by the present assessee is directed against the different orders of Learned CIT(A)-3, Bhopal 2 Surya Infraventure ITA 216 of 2021 and others passed on 20.08.2021, 16.08.2021 & 16.08.2021, respectively. At first, we shall take up the departmental appeal for the Assessment Year 2010-11 bearing

THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

D E R PER BENCH This bunch of departmental appeals and COs filed by the present assessee is directed against the different orders of Learned CIT(A)-3, Bhopal 2 Surya Infraventure ITA 216 of 2021 and others passed on 20.08.2021, 16.08.2021 & 16.08.2021, respectively. At first, we shall take up the departmental appeal for the Assessment Year 2010-11 bearing

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

D E R PER BENCH This bunch of departmental appeals and COs filed by the present assessee is directed against the different orders of Learned CIT(A)-3, Bhopal 2 Surya Infraventure ITA 216 of 2021 and others passed on 20.08.2021, 16.08.2021 & 16.08.2021, respectively. At first, we shall take up the departmental appeal for the Assessment Year 2010-11 bearing

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

D E R PER BENCH: These are Revenue’s appeals and assessee’s cross objection against orders of the ld.Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-1, Indore. For better understanding, the details of appeals filed by the Revenue and CO by the assessee are summarized in the following tabular form: In the case of Shri Keshav Kumar Nanchani & Others (Indore Bench

JCIT(OSD),-2(1),INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

D E R PER BENCH: These are Revenue’s appeals and assessee’s cross objection against orders of the ld.Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-1, Indore. For better understanding, the details of appeals filed by the Revenue and CO by the assessee are summarized in the following tabular form: In the case of Shri Keshav Kumar Nanchani & Others (Indore Bench

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

D E R PER BENCH: These are Revenue’s appeals and assessee’s cross objection against orders of the ld.Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-1, Indore. For better understanding, the details of appeals filed by the Revenue and CO by the assessee are summarized in the following tabular form: In the case of Shri Keshav Kumar Nanchani & Others (Indore Bench

RAJESH KUMAR AGRAWAL,DEWAS vs. ITO DEWAS, DEWAS

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2015-16 Rajesh Kumar Agrawal, Ito 105, Agra Mumbai Road, Dewas बनाम/ Dewas Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Abopa3336J Assessee By Shri Pranay Goyal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2025

D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 28.06.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 30.04.2021 passed by learned National e-Assessment Centre, Delhi [“AO”] u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of Income

SMT. SHWETA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. THE PR. CIT-2, INDORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2014-15

5 Copy of D-mat statement of the assessee 25 26 Smt. Shweta Agrawal /ITANo.280/Ind/2019 with the Union Bank of India forthe period 01/04/2013 to 31/03/2014 6 Copy of share certificate as issued by the 38 amalgamated company M/s Sunrise Asian Limited 7 Copy of Dematerialisation Request form to 39 Union Bank of India for dematerialisation of shares

SNAP COMPUTER SYSTEM (P) LTD.,INDORE vs. ITO (INTER TAXATION & TRANSFER PRICING), BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

D E R PER MANISH BORAD, AM. The above captioned appeals filed at the instance of assessee pertaining to Assessment Year 2015-16 and 2016-17 are directed against the orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)13 (in short ‘Ld.CIT’], Ahmedabad dated 15.02.2019 which is arising ITANo.448 & 449/Ind/2019 out of the order u/s 201 of the Income