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

Appeals are allowed

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

TDS) of this is not fees for technical services as envisaged in Section 194J read with Section 9(1)(vii) read

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) of this is not fees for technical services as envisaged in Section 194J read with Section 9(1)(vii) read

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) of this is not fees for technical services as envisaged in Section 194J read with Section 9(1)(vii) read

M/S. ARIHANT CHERITABLE TRUST,INDORE vs. THE ITO (TDS)-1, INDORE

In the result, we find no force in the ground of the Revenue, hence dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2015-16

9. When the matter was carried before learned CIT (A), it was held that instead of provision of Section 194J only the provision of Section 194C would be applicable. Relevant paragraph of learned CIT (A) is reproduced below: "The reasons of the ACIT(TDS

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

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

TDS under that section arises only if the assessee pays or credits “any sum chargeable under the provisions of this act”. Thereafter, hecarried us to section 9

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

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

TDS under that section arises only if the assessee pays or credits “any sum chargeable under the provisions of this act”. Thereafter, hecarried us to section 9

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

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

TDS under that section arises only if the assessee pays or credits “any sum chargeable under the provisions of this act”. Thereafter, hecarried us to section 9

M/S SANGHVI FOODS P LTD, ,INDORE vs. ITO (IT & TP) , BHOPAL

In the result common issue raised in

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

section 9 (1 Hi), since BIPL is taking and finalizing orders in India, mainly and or wholly for the non-resident - BAGS, 9. The alternative contention of the appellant is that. even if said material was purchased from Indian Company - BIPL, the appellant 'was not liable to deduct TDS

M/S SANGHVI FOODS P LTD, ,INDORE vs. ITO (IT & TP) , BHOPAL

In the result common issue raised in

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

section 9 (1 Hi), since BIPL is taking and finalizing orders in India, mainly and or wholly for the non-resident - BAGS, 9. The alternative contention of the appellant is that. even if said material was purchased from Indian Company - BIPL, the appellant 'was not liable to deduct TDS

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

section 5(2)(b) r.w.s. 9(1) of the Act holding that the non-resident entities had a business connection in India and created a demand for default of non-deduction of TDS

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

section 5(2)(b) r.w.s. 9(1) of the Act holding that the non-resident entities had a business connection in India and created a demand for default of non-deduction of TDS

MAAN ALUMINIUM LTD.,PITHAMPUR vs. ITO (IT & TP), BHOPAL

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Maan Aluminium Ltd. Ito (It & Tp), 427, Orbit Mall, Bhopal बनाम/ 4Th Floor, Ab Road, Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aapcm 0088 C / Tan: Bplm 07361 E Assessee By Shri Sudhir Padliya, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.03.2023

TDS under that section arises only if the income of non-resident is chargeable to tax in India. Then, Ld. AR carried us to section 9

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

9. The ld. DR submitted that in a number of cases, various High Courts have upheld the validity of provisions of section 234E which provides for imposition of fee for delayed filing of statement of TDS

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

9. The ld. DR submitted that in a number of cases, various High Courts have upheld the validity of provisions of section 234E which provides for imposition of fee for delayed filing of statement of TDS

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 was not made in respect of this expenditure under section 195 of the Act, he disallowed the expenses claim under section 40(a) (ia) of the Act. 6.1.1. The Ld.AO followed the observation made in the order under section 195 read with section 9

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 was not made in respect of this expenditure under section 195 of the Act, he disallowed the expenses claim under section 40(a) (ia) of the Act. 6.1.1. The Ld.AO followed the observation made in the order under section 195 read with section 9

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 was not made in respect of this expenditure under section 195 of the Act, he disallowed the expenses claim under section 40(a) (ia) of the Act. 6.1.1. The Ld.AO followed the observation made in the order under section 195 read with section 9

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 was not made in respect of this expenditure under section 195 of the Act, he disallowed the expenses claim under section 40(a) (ia) of the Act. 6.1.1. The Ld.AO followed the observation made in the order under section 195 read with section 9