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

TDS, provisions of section 40(a) (ia) are attracted and the AO has rightly disallowed the sum paid to Australian Parent Company. The DRP noted that the technical services agreement entered in to January 2006 substantially alters the position. The DRP, observed that the ITATs has not considered in the order given in favour of the appellant prior

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

TDS, provisions of section 40(a) (ia) are attracted and the AO has rightly disallowed the sum paid to Australian Parent Company. The DRP noted that the technical services agreement entered in to January 2006 substantially alters the position. The DRP, observed that the ITATs has not considered in the order given in favour of the appellant prior

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

TDS, provisions of section 40(a) (ia) are attracted and the AO has rightly disallowed the sum paid to Australian Parent Company. The DRP noted that the technical services agreement entered in to January 2006 substantially alters the position. The DRP, observed that the ITATs has not considered in the order given in favour of the appellant prior

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

TDS, provisions of section 40(a) (ia) are attracted and the AO has rightly disallowed the sum paid to Australian Parent Company. The DRP noted that the technical services agreement entered in to January 2006 substantially alters the position. The DRP, observed that the ITATs has not considered in the order given in favour of the appellant prior

IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. JCIT TDS INDORE, INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniidea Cellular Ltd. Jcit 139-140 Electronics Complex Indore Vs. Pardeshipura Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aaacb 2100P Assessee By Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Gagan Tiwari, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.09.2023

Section 271C as the respondent in each case has discharged its burden of showing reasonable cause for failure to deduct tax at source. 61. We find some parallels between the facts of the present case and the situation in Eli Lilly & Co. (Supra). The liability of an airline to deduct TDS

AJAY AGARKAR,UJJAIN vs. CIT(A), MADHYA PRADESH

The appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Guptaassessment Year:2018-19 Ajay Aagarkar Nfac House No.4, Kalpataru Delhi Avenue, Dewas Road, Near बनाम/ Rukmani Motors Vs. Ujjain (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Abhpa2638L Assessee By Ms. Ruchira Nerkar, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement .01.2025

61 and the amount of leave salary drawn by the assessee on or after the date of absorption in BSNL ( being PSU ) will be taxable , subjected to the exemption limit of Rs.3 lakhs as per clause (ii) of the aforesaid section. 3.4 In support of his contention he relied on an internal instruction issued by the DGM ( taxation ) , of Corporate

RIDDHI SIDDHI REALTY,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 4(1), INCOME TAX INDORE

In the result the appeal of the assesse is allowed for

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiriddhi Siddhi Realty, Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 39 Shardhanand Marg, 4(1), Vs. Indore Indore

Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act is upheld. Consequently, all grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are hereby dismissed. 6. Decision: As a result, the Appeal is dismissed”. 2.3 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned order” has preferred the instant second appeal before this Tribunal and has raised following grounds of appeal in the Form

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

61. The Gauhati High Court has observed that Section 40A(3) applies only to payments made on account of 'expenditure incurred' and the payment made purchase of stock-in-trade cannot be termed as 'expenditure incurred since money does not go irretrievably in such cases. We are unable to agree with the view taken by the Gauhati High Court.” Page

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% under section 194DA on maturity value and you have received premature maturity value in Feb, 2015 whereas the actual date of maturity is 28.04.2015. In view of amendment provisions of explanation (1) of section 10(10D) of the Act, the receipt are taxable in the hands of assignee i.e. assessee even if they are assigned before the date

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% under section 194DA on maturity value and you have received premature maturity value in Feb, 2015 whereas the actual date of maturity is 28.04.2015. In view of amendment provisions of explanation (1) of section 10(10D) of the Act, the receipt are taxable in the hands of assignee i.e. assessee even if they are assigned before the date

M/S BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED,INDORE vs. JCIT TDS, INDORE

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed

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

Section 271C as the respondent in each case has discharged its burden of showing reasonable cause for failure to deduct tax at source. 61. We find some parallels between the facts of the present case and the situation in Eli Lilly & Co. (Supra). The liability of an airline to deduct TDS

M/S BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED,INDORE vs. JCIT TDS, INDORE

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed

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

Section 271C as the respondent in each case has discharged its burden of showing reasonable cause for failure to deduct tax at source. 61. We find some parallels between the facts of the present case and the situation in Eli Lilly & Co. (Supra). The liability of an airline to deduct TDS

M/S. BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE CIT- (TDS), BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed

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

Section 271C as the respondent in each case has discharged its burden of showing reasonable cause for failure to deduct tax at source. 61. We find some parallels between the facts of the present case and the situation in Eli Lilly & Co. (Supra). The liability of an airline to deduct TDS