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 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)

2 to s. 9(1)(vii) would also have to be construed as involving a human element • The expression 'technical service' would have reference to only technical service rendered by a human. Page 36 of 65 ITA No. 415/Ind/2014 & 265/Ind/2018 – AY 2010-11 M/s Vodafone Idea Ltd. (Formerly M/s Idea Cellular Ltd.) • MTNL or other companies do not provide

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)

2 to s. 9(1)(vii) would also have to be construed as involving a human element • The expression 'technical service' would have reference to only technical service rendered by a human. Page 36 of 65 ITA No. 415/Ind/2014 & 265/Ind/2018 – AY 2010-11 M/s Vodafone Idea Ltd. (Formerly M/s Idea Cellular Ltd.) • MTNL or other companies do not provide

M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., UNIT SATNA CEMENT WORKS,SATNA vs. ITO (IT & TP), BHOPAL

In the result, Assessee’s appeals

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

TDS Jabalpur raised a demand including interest at Rs. 1,90,54,630/- and Rs.10,84,08,460/- for A.Y. 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively. treating the assessee in default for not deducting tax at source on the payment made to various non-resident being during the year under consideration for purchase, installation and supervision charges. Aggrieved assessee challenged

M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., UNIT SATNA CEMENT WORKS,SATNA vs. ITO (IT & TP), BHOPAL

In the result, Assessee’s appeals

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

TDS Jabalpur raised a demand including interest at Rs. 1,90,54,630/- and Rs.10,84,08,460/- for A.Y. 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively. treating the assessee in default for not deducting tax at source on the payment made to various non-resident being during the year under consideration for purchase, installation and supervision charges. Aggrieved assessee challenged

SUPREME TRANSPORT COMPANY,INDORE vs. ITO TDS-II, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

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

2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under section 200A payable under section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel

SUPREME TRANSPORT COMPANY,INDORE vs. ITO TDS-II, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

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

2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under section 200A payable under section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel

BMG CALCUTTAWALA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. AO CPC (TDS), ITO TDS(1) INDORE, INDORE

Appeals are allowed\"

2), it can be\nsaid that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of\nfee under section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for\nmaking of demand of such fee under section 200A payable under\nsection 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts\nand circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of\nthe learned counsel

ACIT , RATLAM vs. M/S SHIRANI AUTOMOTIVES PVT. LTD, RATLAM MP

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, M/S. Shirani Automotive Ratlam P. Ltd. बनाम/ 29, Shirani Pura, Vs. Ratlam (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aancs 1007 M Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Assessee By None Date Of Hearing 02.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.03.2023

54,75,935/- constituted dividend upto accumulated profit i.e. Rs. 4,36,96,180/-; accordingly made an addition of Rs. 4,36,96,180/- in the hands of assessee. 7. During first-appeal, Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition by observing that the two companies, namely Sagar Ltd. and assessee-company are group companies having common shareholders and engaged

THE DCIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, BHOPAL vs. M/S. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

tds on the basis of 26AS dated 19.09.2013 available. Further it is submitted that the assessee has made FDR with various bank and the same are auto renewed by the bank and the interest on FDR is 39 Mayank Welfare society ITANos.232 & 776/Ind/2018/17 accounted for on the basis of the information available in the 26AS statement and the amount

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, INDORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

tds on the basis of 26AS dated 19.09.2013 available. Further it is submitted that the assessee has made FDR with various bank and the same are auto renewed by the bank and the interest on FDR is 39 Mayank Welfare society ITANos.232 & 776/Ind/2018/17 accounted for on the basis of the information available in the 26AS statement and the amount

SHRI KHALID AMAN,BHOPAL vs. THE PCIT-2, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Bench: Ms.Suchitra Kamble & Shrib.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Khalid Aman, Pr. Cit-2 Bhopal Bhopal बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aarpa 4443 L Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 17.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 10.01.2023

54 where a certificate of Shri Sunil Garg, Govt. Registered Valuer, is placed. It is submitted that this certificate was filed to Ld. PCIT during revision- proceeding which clearly concludes “In view of the above fact, there is no availability of buyers due to various disputes, litigation, slow down in the property market value of the above-mentioned property cannot

SUCH MEDIA PUBLICATION P LTD ,CIT (A) NFAC DELHI vs. NFAC DELHI, DELHI

In the result, this appeal is dismissed

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

TDS of Rs.72,87,370/- was allowed and the refund was determined at Rs.11,61,797/-. 7. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as 'CIT(A)'). The CIT(A), by order dated 18.12.2023, dismissed the appeal. The assessee thereupon approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by the impugned order dated

SHRI JAGDISH KUMAR GULIA,BHOPAL vs. THRE ASSTT.DIRECTORE OF INCOME TAX ,CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed

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

TDS of Rs.72,87,370/- was allowed and the refund was determined at Rs.11,61,797/-. 7. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as 'CIT(A)'). The CIT(A), by order dated 18.12.2023, dismissed the appeal. The assessee thereupon approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by the impugned order dated

M/S DAULATARAM ENGINEERING SERVICES P.LTD,MANDIDEEP vs. THE ADIT/CPC , BANGALORE

In the result, this appeal is dismissed

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

TDS of Rs.72,87,370/- was allowed and the refund was determined at Rs.11,61,797/-. 7. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as 'CIT(A)'). The CIT(A), by order dated 18.12.2023, dismissed the appeal. The assessee thereupon approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by the impugned order dated

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshishri Vimal Todi, Additional Commissioner बनाम/ 501, Darshan Residency, Of Income-Tax, Vs. 104-105, Anand Bazar, Indore Indore

TDS) v. IKEA Trading Hong Kong Page 19 of 33 Shri Vimal Todi ITA Nos. 188/Ind/2024 - AY 2012-13 Ltd. (supra) as to whether the starting point of limitation could be a date earlier than the issuance of the SCN, viz., the date on which the AO wrote a letter to the ACIT recommending such initiation. No such contention appears

PRADEEP PINJANI,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(2), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed as mentioned above

TDS u/s 194-IA filed by purchaser of property. This Form is for\n\"value of consideration” for which the property was sold by assessee and it is\nnothing to do with costs/exemptions claimable by assessee in computing\ncapital gain. Therefore, the query raised by AO during assessment-\nproceeding was also qua the “value of consideration” and not for\ncosts/exemption

HUSAIN KOHAWALA,KUKSHI DISTT. DHAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF APPEAL, NFAC

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanihusain Kohawala, Cit (A), Saifiya Marg Bohra Mohalla, Nfac, Near Macchi Darwaza, Delhi Kukshi, Vs. Dhar (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bkrpk6392P Assessee By Shri Parag Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 09.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 11.10.2024 O R D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, Jm:

section 143(3) making addition us 69A as unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 7416206 (All Credits including Transfers are considered as cash deposits). The Total addition was made considering two Bank Account i.e. SBI- Alirajpur Branch (Addition of Rs. 6348785) and SBI- Anandganj Mandi Branch (Addition of Rs. 1067421). 2. CIT(A) while making his observation regarding the Grounds