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

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

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

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

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

1)(vii). Then, he carried us to provision of section 195 to show that the requirement of 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

1)(vii). Then, he carried us to provision of section 195 to show that the requirement of 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

1)(vii). Then, he carried us to provision of section 195 to show that the requirement of 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. 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

Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the view taken by the Bombay High Court that the transaction charges paid to the Bombay Stock Exchange by its members are for 'technical services' rendered is not an appropriate view. Such charges, really, are in the nature of payments made for facilities provided

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. Hon'ble High Courts have Page 7 of 23 M/s. Supreme Transport Company ITA No. 914 & 917/Ind/2024 – AY 2013-14 Financial Year

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. Hon'ble High Courts have Page 7 of 23 M/s. Supreme Transport Company ITA No. 914 & 917/Ind/2024 – AY 2013-14 Financial Year

M/S D & H SECHERON ELECTRODES PVT. LTD,INIDORE vs. ITO (IT & TP), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2016-17 M/S. D&H Secheron Electrodes Ito (It & Tp), Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Bhopal 44-46, Industries Estate, Kila Maidan, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Bpld00066D

9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act. He also made submissions for explaining the words “managerial, ‘technical’ and ‘consultancy’. He also referred to Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and South Korea under section 90 of the I.T. Act including Article 12, 14 and 15 of this DTAA agreement. Similarly he submitted that the amount paid by the assessee

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

9 of 24 ITA No.124/Ind/2023 & ITANo.35/Ind/2023 Million Trader Bhopal Page 10 of 24 before the AO as per the amended rules of Section 37BA and sub rule (2) of clause (i) of the amended rule. We found that the AO is directed justice may be done. The AO is further directed to give credit of this tax, which is effective

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

9 of 24 ITA No.124/Ind/2023 & ITANo.35/Ind/2023 Million Trader Bhopal Page 10 of 24 before the AO as per the amended rules of Section 37BA and sub rule (2) of clause (i) of the amended rule. We found that the AO is directed justice may be done. The AO is further directed to give credit of this tax, which is effective

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

section 9(1) (vii) of the Act. The DRP also placed reliance in the case of HMS Real Estate (P) Ltd. 325 ITR 71(AAR) and DCIT vs. All Russia Scientific Research Institute and Cable Industry 92 TTJ 74(Mum). The DRP observed that Australian Company provided complete design, drawing and the assessee has not purchased designs & drawings but only

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

section 9(1) (vii) of the Act. The DRP also placed reliance in the case of HMS Real Estate (P) Ltd. 325 ITR 71(AAR) and DCIT vs. All Russia Scientific Research Institute and Cable Industry 92 TTJ 74(Mum). The DRP observed that Australian Company provided complete design, drawing and the assessee has not purchased designs & drawings but only

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

section 9(1) (vii) of the Act. The DRP also placed reliance in the case of HMS Real Estate (P) Ltd. 325 ITR 71(AAR) and DCIT vs. All Russia Scientific Research Institute and Cable Industry 92 TTJ 74(Mum). The DRP observed that Australian Company provided complete design, drawing and the assessee has not purchased designs & drawings but only

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

section 9(1) (vii) of the Act. The DRP also placed reliance in the case of HMS Real Estate (P) Ltd. 325 ITR 71(AAR) and DCIT vs. All Russia Scientific Research Institute and Cable Industry 92 TTJ 74(Mum). The DRP observed that Australian Company provided complete design, drawing and the assessee has not purchased designs & drawings but only

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 .. 1,23,37,620 Total 13,76,16,848 3.02 Your Honour, in the instant

M/S DHAR AUTHOMOTIVE PVT. LTD,INDORE vs. DCIT TDS, INDORE

In the result, the second issue for lower/non-deduction of TCS

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

1) & 201 (1A) of the Act on the amounts paid by the assessee towards operation & maintenance of windmill machines. This issue is common for ITANos. 101, 102 & 103/Ind/2018. 5. Second issue only pertains to A.Y. 2013-14 in ITANo.101/Ind/2018 for lower deduction of tax collected at source. 6. Apropos to first common issue relating to rate of deduction