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. 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

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

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

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

D) of section 10 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 before amendment by the Act, inter alia, exempt any sum received under a life insurance policy other than a keyman insurance policy. Explanation 1 to the said clause (10D) defines a keyman insurance policy to mean a life insurance policy taken by a person on the life of another person

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

D) of section 10 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 before amendment by the Act, inter alia, exempt any sum received under a life insurance policy other than a keyman insurance policy. Explanation 1 to the said clause (10D) defines a keyman insurance policy to mean a life insurance policy taken by a person on the life of another person

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, 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 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 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

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

d), and even the OECD guidelines, the only transaction, which are similar in nature or closely interlinked can be aggregated as one transaction and benchmarked, and only where considering it as separate transaction is impractical. Such is not the case here. Since all the AE projects of the assessee are independent and different projects, the benchmarking needs to be carried