M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (TDS), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

TDS u/s 194J. However, it is the submission of assessee that the impugned payment is covered by none. Therefore, the assessee has raised two separate grounds, namely Ground No. IV and Ground No. V to deal both points respectively. 8. The expression “fee for technical services” is defined in Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii) as under: “Explanation

M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (TDS), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

TDS u/s 194J. However, it is the submission of assessee that the impugned payment is covered by none. Therefore, the assessee has raised two separate grounds, namely Ground No. IV and Ground No. V to deal both points respectively. 8. The expression “fee for technical services” is defined in Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii) as under: “Explanation

M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (TDS), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

TDS u/s 194J. However, it is the submission of assessee that the impugned payment is covered by none. Therefore, the assessee has raised two separate grounds, namely Ground No. IV and Ground No. V to deal both points respectively. 8. The expression “fee for technical services” is defined in Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii) as under: “Explanation

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

iii) Date on which the Competent Officer issued show-cause notice to assessee u/s 274 – 29.10.2018 Page 5 of 33 Shri Vimal Todi ITA Nos. 188/Ind/2024 - AY 2012-13 (iv) Date on which the penalty-orders were passed by Competent Officer – 28.03.2019 9. Then, Ld. AR referred the very same provision of section 275(1)(c) as analysed

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

section 200A where the date of filing of TDS statement and date of intimation are much prior to 1- 6-2015:- (i) Prakash Industries Ltd. v. DCIT [IT Appeal Nos.5865 to 5869 (Delhi) of 2016, dated 29-7-2019]; (ii) Ajvin Infotech (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [IT Appeal Nos. 2305 & 2306 (Delhi) of 2017, dated 4-3-2020]; (iii

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

section 200A where the date of filing of TDS statement and date of intimation are much prior to 1- 6-2015:- (i) Prakash Industries Ltd. v. DCIT [IT Appeal Nos.5865 to 5869 (Delhi) of 2016, dated 29-7-2019]; (ii) Ajvin Infotech (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [IT Appeal Nos. 2305 & 2306 (Delhi) of 2017, dated 4-3-2020]; (iii

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

MILLION TRADERS BHOPAL P LTD,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT,CPC,BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

6. As is well known, Chapter XVIIB of the Act pertains to tax deduction at source. This part contains detailed provisions for collection of tax at source and depositing with the government revenue and other related provisions. We may refer to the relevant provisions contained thereunder. Section 199 pertains to credit for tax deducted Relevant portion thereof reads as under

MILLION TRADERS BHOPAL P LTD,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT,CPC,BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

6. As is well known, Chapter XVIIB of the Act pertains to tax deduction at source. This part contains detailed provisions for collection of tax at source and depositing with the government revenue and other related provisions. We may refer to the relevant provisions contained thereunder. Section 199 pertains to credit for tax deducted Relevant portion thereof reads as under

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

Appeals are allowed

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

iii) Date on which the Competent Officer issued show-cause notice to assessee u/s 274 – 29.10.2018 (iv) Date on which the penalty-orders were passed by Competent Officer – 28.03.2019 9. Then, Ld. AR referred the very same provision of section 275(1)(c) as analysed by Ld. CIT(A), re-produced in earlier para. Ld. AR explained that there

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

Appeals are allowed

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

iii) Date on which the Competent Officer issued show-cause notice to assessee u/s 274 – 29.10.2018 (iv) Date on which the penalty-orders were passed by Competent Officer – 28.03.2019 9. Then, Ld. AR referred the very same provision of section 275(1)(c) as analysed by Ld. CIT(A), re-produced in earlier para. Ld. AR explained that there

M/S. SANWARIA AGROILS LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

6. We find that the issue in appeal is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the aforesaid decisions of the Hon`ble Madras High Court and the coordinated bench of the Tribunal. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. 24. The learned counsel for the assessee, relied in the case

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

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

6 of 29 Permali Wallace P. Ltd., Bhopal vs. ITO, Bhopal, ITA Nos.550 to 552/Ind/2018 - A.Ys.2014-15 to 2016-17 4. Thus, in the above Tables, the AO noted that the assessee has made payments to four (4) non-resident parties, namely (i) HSK Hauskeller & Siegmann, Germany [“M/s HSK”], (ii)M/s Tethys Ventures Pte Ltd., Singapore [“M/s Tethys”], (iii

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

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

6 of 29 Permali Wallace P. Ltd., Bhopal vs. ITO, Bhopal, ITA Nos.550 to 552/Ind/2018 - A.Ys.2014-15 to 2016-17 4. Thus, in the above Tables, the AO noted that the assessee has made payments to four (4) non-resident parties, namely (i) HSK Hauskeller & Siegmann, Germany [“M/s HSK”], (ii)M/s Tethys Ventures Pte Ltd., Singapore [“M/s Tethys”], (iii

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

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

6 of 29 Permali Wallace P. Ltd., Bhopal vs. ITO, Bhopal, ITA Nos.550 to 552/Ind/2018 - A.Ys.2014-15 to 2016-17 4. Thus, in the above Tables, the AO noted that the assessee has made payments to four (4) non-resident parties, namely (i) HSK Hauskeller & Siegmann, Germany [“M/s HSK”], (ii)M/s Tethys Ventures Pte Ltd., Singapore [“M/s Tethys”], (iii

SHRI SURENDRA SINGH BHATIA,INDORE vs. THE JCIT-3, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

TDS 2,62,79,228 14-09-2007 1,40,00,000 15-12-2007 5,00,00,000 15-12-2007 1,30,00,000 15-03-2008 1,63,00,000 18-09-2008 40,00,000 25-09-2008 17,00,000 27-09-2008 1,23,37,620 Total 13,76,16,848 11. That