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

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

50 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 which no TDS was done; therefore, these were disallowed under section

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

50 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 which no TDS was done; therefore, these were disallowed under section

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

50 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 which no TDS was done; therefore, these were disallowed under section

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

50 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 which no TDS was done; therefore, these were disallowed under section

SHRI CHAMAN KUMAR GOYAL,BADWAHA vs. THE ITO (TDS)-2,INDORE, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Chaman Kumar Goyal Ito (Tds)-2 Goyal Oil Mills Barwaha Indore Vs. Barwaha, M.P. (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Ahvpg 2117 N Assessee By Shri Ram Gilda, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.10.2023

50,00,000/- therefore, as per section 194 IA(2), the assessee was required to deduct TDS @1%. The AO thus

VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL,BARWAHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS II INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanivijay Kumar Goyal Ito, 48, Narmada Barwala Nfac Vs. Mp Delhi (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Asrpg8655L Assessee By Shri Ram Gilda, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 08 .05.2024

50,00,000/- therefore, as per section 194 IA(2), the assessee was required to deduct TDS @1%. The AO thus

DCIT CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

50,421/- under section 404(2) on account of interest paid to related parties and added the same to the income of the appellant during the year under consideration. The relevant discussion is in para 4 to 4.2 on page 2 of the order. 2.2 The appellant has undertaken a project of construction of a township in the name

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

50,421/- under section 404(2) on account of interest paid to related parties and added the same to the income of the appellant during the year under consideration. The relevant discussion is in para 4 to 4.2 on page 2 of the order. 2.2 The appellant has undertaken a project of construction of a township in the name

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

50,421/- under section 404(2) on account of interest paid to related parties and added the same to the income of the appellant during the year under consideration. The relevant discussion is in para 4 to 4.2 on page 2 of the order. 2.2 The appellant has undertaken a project of construction of a township in the name

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

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

PRAHLAD DAS GOYAL,BHOPAL vs. DCIT - 1(1) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2016-17 Prahlad Das Goyal, Dcit/Acit 1(1) 18, Shyamla Hills, Bhopal बनाम/ Bhopal Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Abbpg3494L Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 31.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04.08.2025

TDS u/s 194-IA. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal whereupon the CIT(A) deleted disallowance relatable to the payment of Rs. 20,00,000/- accepting assessee’s argument that the said payment was made in May, 2013 before 01.06.2013 i.e. the date from which the provision of section 194-IA came into the statute. However

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

50 CIT (A), Indore- 1/10085/2020- ITA 271/Ind/2022 TEHKUKSHIDIST BRANCH BPLJ01618B 2012-13 Q2 26Q 7200 21 2-Aug-22 51 CIT (A), Indore- 1/10087/2020- ITA 272/Ind/2022 ALI BRANCH BPLJ01618B 2012-13 Q3 26Q 1404 21 2-Aug-22 52 CIT (A), Jabalpur- 1/10314/2020- ITA 273/Ind/2022 JHABUA BRANCH BPLJ01645A