DISTT WOMAN & CHILD DEV OFFICER VIDISHA,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

DEEPAK PAREKH,USA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CPC, BENGALURU

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

TDS certificate in the name of the other person. The proviso to Rule 37BA(2) is just a procedural aspect of giving effect to the mandate of section 199 for allowing credit to the other person in whose hands the income is chargeable to tax. The entire purpose of this exercise of allowing credit to the other person

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 ,BHESOLA 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 ,LABRIYA 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 ,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 ,AMZERA 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 ,PADIYAL 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 ,SUSARI 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 ,BHESOLA 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-