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

Appeals are allowed

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

TDS) reported in (2016) 67 taxmann.com 223. The issue considered therein was in respect of payment towards call interconnectivity charged for call transmission on foreign network. The Tribunal therein, on applying ratios pronounced in the above referred decisions, held it not as ‘Royalty’. Therefore in our opinion, the Payments made by the assessee in lieu of services provides

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) reported in (2016) 67 taxmann.com 223. The issue considered therein was in respect of payment towards call interconnectivity charged for call transmission on foreign network. The Tribunal therein, on applying ratios pronounced in the above referred decisions, held it not as ‘Royalty’. Therefore in our opinion, the Payments made by the assessee in lieu of services provides

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) reported in (2016) 67 taxmann.com 223. The issue considered therein was in respect of payment towards call interconnectivity charged for call transmission on foreign network. The Tribunal therein, on applying ratios pronounced in the above referred decisions, held it not as ‘Royalty’. Therefore in our opinion, the Payments made by the assessee in lieu of services provides

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

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

section 9(1)(vii) had no application at all. The assessee also submitted that the foreign supplier had deputed his technical persons for installation and no money was separately paid on that account. However, the AO was not satisfied with submission of assessee who insisted that the amount of installation charges was separately mentioned in all documents. Ultimately

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

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

section 9(1)(vii) had no application at all. The assessee also submitted that the foreign supplier had deputed his technical persons for installation and no money was separately paid on that account. However, the AO was not satisfied with submission of assessee who insisted that the amount of installation charges was separately mentioned in all documents. Ultimately

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

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

section 9(1)(vii) had no application at all. The assessee also submitted that the foreign supplier had deputed his technical persons for installation and no money was separately paid on that account. However, the AO was not satisfied with submission of assessee who insisted that the amount of installation charges was separately mentioned in all documents. Ultimately

BULK PACK EXPORTS LTD,INDORE vs. ITO (IT & TP), BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

TDS under s.195 of the Act, the Authorities below grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in not considering and appreciating the material fact that both the foreign companies to whom the appellant had made payments were entitled to the benefits conferred under sub-section (2) of section 90 of the Act as with both the countries, of which

BULK PACK EXPORTS LTD,INDORE vs. ITO (IT & TP), BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

TDS under s.195 of the Act, the Authorities below grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in not considering and appreciating the material fact that both the foreign companies to whom the appellant had made payments were entitled to the benefits conferred under sub-section (2) of section 90 of the Act as with both the countries, of which

THE ITO-1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S FRIENDS ASSOCIATES, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniito-1(1) M/S Friends Associates Bhopal Shop No.32, G.T.B. Complex New Market, Vs. Bhopal

section 148 was completed on 19.12.2019. Subsequently, the AO initiated the proceedings u/s 154 of the Act to rectify the mistake of allowing the claim of deduction in respect of the expenditure on which no TDS was deducted as reflected in the tax audit report in form 36. Ld. DR has submitted that the AO while passing the order

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 and having not deducted so, there was a failure on the part of assessee. Accordingly, Ld. AO treated the asssessee as defaulter in terms of section 201(1)/(1A) and created demand of tax and interest as per working made in Para No. 8 of his order. CIT(A)’s Order: 5. During first-appeal, Ld. CIT(A) made

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

1,06,99,464/- for A.Y. 10-11 and Rs. 3,21,61,710/- from A.Y. 11-12 may be deleted. 6.3.4. The learned Counsel for the assessee, also placed reliance in the case of Sonata Infra Technology Ltd. (2006) 75 SOT 465(Mum), Tata Consultancy Ltd. 271 ITR 401 , Lucent Technologies Institute 2009-TIOL_161-ITAT-DEL, Samsung Electronics

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

1,06,99,464/- for A.Y. 10-11 and Rs. 3,21,61,710/- from A.Y. 11-12 may be deleted. 6.3.4. The learned Counsel for the assessee, also placed reliance in the case of Sonata Infra Technology Ltd. (2006) 75 SOT 465(Mum), Tata Consultancy Ltd. 271 ITR 401 , Lucent Technologies Institute 2009-TIOL_161-ITAT-DEL, Samsung Electronics

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

1,06,99,464/- for A.Y. 10-11 and Rs. 3,21,61,710/- from A.Y. 11-12 may be deleted. 6.3.4. The learned Counsel for the assessee, also placed reliance in the case of Sonata Infra Technology Ltd. (2006) 75 SOT 465(Mum), Tata Consultancy Ltd. 271 ITR 401 , Lucent Technologies Institute 2009-TIOL_161-ITAT-DEL, Samsung Electronics

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

1,06,99,464/- for A.Y. 10-11 and Rs. 3,21,61,710/- from A.Y. 11-12 may be deleted. 6.3.4. The learned Counsel for the assessee, also placed reliance in the case of Sonata Infra Technology Ltd. (2006) 75 SOT 465(Mum), Tata Consultancy Ltd. 271 ITR 401 , Lucent Technologies Institute 2009-TIOL_161-ITAT-DEL, Samsung Electronics

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

90,750/-. Mayank Welfare society ITANos.232 & 776/Ind/2018/17 Though the assessee provided the complete list of 27746 persons for A.Y. 2013-14 who have given cash donation of Rs. 14,06,75,754/- and list of 38625 contributors to donation of Rs.17,23,85,000/- and list with PAN provided for donation of Rs.4, 35,00,000/- containing details

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

90,750/-. Mayank Welfare society ITANos.232 & 776/Ind/2018/17 Though the assessee provided the complete list of 27746 persons for A.Y. 2013-14 who have given cash donation of Rs. 14,06,75,754/- and list of 38625 contributors to donation of Rs.17,23,85,000/- and list with PAN provided for donation of Rs.4, 35,00,000/- containing details

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