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

Appeals are allowed

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

90(2) of the Income Tax Act read with explanation 4 thereof, and Article 3(2) of the DTAA……….” 21. The third question is, whether the payments made to NTOS for providing interconnect services and transfer of capacity in foreign countries is chargeable to tax as royalty. It was argued by Shri. Pardiwala, that for subsequent years in assessee

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

Appeals are allowed

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

90(2) of the Income Tax Act read with explanation 4 thereof, and Article 3(2) of the DTAA……….” 21. The third question is, whether the payments made to NTOS for providing interconnect services and transfer of capacity in foreign countries is chargeable to tax as royalty. It was argued by Shri. Pardiwala, that for subsequent years in assessee

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)

90(2) of the Income Tax Act read with explanation 4 thereof, and Article 3(2) of the DTAA……….” 21. The third question is, whether the payments made to NTOS for providing interconnect services and transfer of capacity in foreign countries is chargeable to tax as royalty. It was argued by Shri. Pardiwala, that for subsequent years in assessee

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)

90(2) of the Income Tax Act read with explanation 4 thereof, and Article 3(2) of the DTAA……….” 21. The third question is, whether the payments made to NTOS for providing interconnect services and transfer of capacity in foreign countries is chargeable to tax as royalty. It was argued by Shri. Pardiwala, that for subsequent years in assessee

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

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

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. SHRI RITESH JAIN, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani & It(Ss)Ano.14/Ind/2022 (Assesssment Year 2011-12

90 7.1. Thus, Ld. AR has submitted that when the AO has passed the impugned order without giving four weeks to the assessee after disposing of the objections against notice u/s 148 thus the same is invalid and liable to be quashed. 8. On the other hand, Ld. DR has submitted that the AO has passed the impugned order being

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

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

2 to Section 9(1)(vii). When the AO show-caused the assessee seeking explanation, the assessee submitted a reply claiming that it was a case of purchase of machinery on principal-to-principal basis; that the payee supplied machinery from outside India; and that the purchase price of machinery was ‘inclusive’ of installation charges; therefore section

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

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

2 to Section 9(1)(vii). When the AO show-caused the assessee seeking explanation, the assessee submitted a reply claiming that it was a case of purchase of machinery on principal-to-principal basis; that the payee supplied machinery from outside India; and that the purchase price of machinery was ‘inclusive’ of installation charges; therefore section

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

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

2 to Section 9(1)(vii). When the AO show-caused the assessee seeking explanation, the assessee submitted a reply claiming that it was a case of purchase of machinery on principal-to-principal basis; that the payee supplied machinery from outside India; and that the purchase price of machinery was ‘inclusive’ of installation charges; therefore section

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 DALY COLLEGE,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO (INTERNATION TAXATION), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Daly College Ito (It & Tp), Indore बनाम/ Bhopal Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Tan: Bplto 0735 A Assessee By Shri Manjeet Sachdeva & Avinash Gaur, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 06.12.2022

90 subsection (2) of the Act, where India has executed a tax treaty, then, the non-resident assessee has the option of being taxed under the tax treaty to the extent its provisions are more beneficial and based upon provisions of India-UK DTAA, we have to consider the treatment given by the Assessing Officer in light of the relevant

SMT. SHWETA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. THE PR. CIT-2, INDORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2014-15

90,000 2 Income from business (being 5,71,856 proprietor of M/s Samarth Impex, Indore) 3 Income from Long Term Capital 27,50,406 Gain (Exempt U/s 10(38) of the Income Tax Act 4 Interest on saving Bank Interest 8,715 5 Dividend Income 3,830 3.1] Details of all bank accounts as maintained by the assessee

M/S. BHANDARI HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE,INDORE vs. THE PR. CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Bhandari Hospital & Pr. Cit-(I) Research Centre, Gf-21 & Indore बनाम/ 22, Opp. Meghdoot Garden, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aadfb8151A

2,84,72,451/- 8/- 8 [ITA No.355/Ind/2017] [Bhandari Hospital & Research Centre] ) excluding other income & depreciation (O)={A-B+C} Profit ratio (D/A) 28.99 % 4.70% 16.84 % (13.95 %) It can thus be seen that after excluding the surrendered income there is net loss in the year under question and the profitability declared is not commensurate with what has been

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)(vi) and section 9(1)(vii)of the Act as well as under India- Austria Tax Treaty on which TDS was not made hence, the AO has rightly disallowed the same under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6.5. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the material available