DISTT WOMAN & CHILD DEV OFFICER VIDISH,VIDISHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS- 2), BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

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

TDS(2), Vs. Lakhanmal Colony, Bhopal Near Circuit House, Vidisha (TAN:BPLD02938F) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Assessee by ShriSourabhRathi, AR Revenue by ShriAshishPorwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 20.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 28.11.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the assessee Under Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

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

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

47,750/- which had been considered by the lower-authorities as FTS. (ii) The lower authorities have wrongly held for grossing up of the amount of TDS u/s 195A. ITA No. 551/Ind/2018 – FY 2014-15 (AY 2015-16): (i) The lower-authorities have wrongly treated the assessee as defaulter for non- deduction of tax at source (TDS

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

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

47,750/- which had been considered by the lower-authorities as FTS. (ii) The lower authorities have wrongly held for grossing up of the amount of TDS u/s 195A. ITA No. 551/Ind/2018 – FY 2014-15 (AY 2015-16): (i) The lower-authorities have wrongly treated the assessee as defaulter for non- deduction of tax at source (TDS

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

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

47,750/- which had been considered by the lower-authorities as FTS. (ii) The lower authorities have wrongly held for grossing up of the amount of TDS u/s 195A. ITA No. 551/Ind/2018 – FY 2014-15 (AY 2015-16): (i) The lower-authorities have wrongly treated the assessee as defaulter for non- deduction of tax at source (TDS

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 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 9(1)(vi) and section 9(1)(vii)of the Act as well as under India- Austria Tax Treaty on which TDS was not made hence, the AO has rightly disallowed the same under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6.5. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the material available

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 9(1)(vi) and section 9(1)(vii)of the Act as well as under India- Austria Tax Treaty on which TDS was not made hence, the AO has rightly disallowed the same under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6.5. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the material available

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 9(1)(vi) and section 9(1)(vii)of the Act as well as under India- Austria Tax Treaty on which TDS was not made hence, the AO has rightly disallowed the same under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6.5. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the material available

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 9(1)(vi) and section 9(1)(vii)of the Act as well as under India- Austria Tax Treaty on which TDS was not made hence, the AO has rightly disallowed the same under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6.5. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the material available

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

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

M.P.GRAMIN BANK ,TIRGAON vs. THE ACIT,CPC -TDS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all 10 appeals at the instance of assessee(s) are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

47 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10086/2020- ITA 268/Ind/2022 RAJGARH BRANCH BPLJ01649E 2014-15 Q4 26Q 34600 21 9-Jul-22 48 ITA 269/Ind/2022 MEGHNAGAR BRANCH BPLJ01667B 2012-13 Q4 26Q 10200 CIT (A), Ujjain/10035/2020-21 9-Jul-22 49 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10082/2020- ITA 270/Ind/2022 SARANGI BRANCH BPLJ02612B 2012-13 Q4 26Q 5146 21 9-Jul-22 50 CIT (A), Indore- 1/10085/2020-

M.P.GRAMIN BANK ,PIPLIYA vs. THE ACIT,CPC -TDS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all 10 appeals at the instance of assessee(s) are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

47 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10086/2020- ITA 268/Ind/2022 RAJGARH BRANCH BPLJ01649E 2014-15 Q4 26Q 34600 21 9-Jul-22 48 ITA 269/Ind/2022 MEGHNAGAR BRANCH BPLJ01667B 2012-13 Q4 26Q 10200 CIT (A), Ujjain/10035/2020-21 9-Jul-22 49 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10082/2020- ITA 270/Ind/2022 SARANGI BRANCH BPLJ02612B 2012-13 Q4 26Q 5146 21 9-Jul-22 50 CIT (A), Indore- 1/10085/2020-

M.P.GRAMIN BANK ,SINGHANA vs. THE ACIT,CPC -TDS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all 10 appeals at the instance of assessee(s) are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

47 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10086/2020- ITA 268/Ind/2022 RAJGARH BRANCH BPLJ01649E 2014-15 Q4 26Q 34600 21 9-Jul-22 48 ITA 269/Ind/2022 MEGHNAGAR BRANCH BPLJ01667B 2012-13 Q4 26Q 10200 CIT (A), Ujjain/10035/2020-21 9-Jul-22 49 CIT (A), Indore- 2/10082/2020- ITA 270/Ind/2022 SARANGI BRANCH BPLJ02612B 2012-13 Q4 26Q 5146 21 9-Jul-22 50 CIT (A), Indore- 1/10085/2020-