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

Appeals are allowed

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

Depreciation Espana SA Vs. ACIT(IT)/DCIT(IT), Bangalore, IT(TA) No. 2657/Bang/2019, 180/Bang/2021 & 817/Bang/2022 order dated 10.08.2023 and the ITAT has categorically held that roaming charges are neither FTS or Royalty. The relevant paras of the order are extracted below: “3. Aggrieved by the final assessment orders passed by the Ld.AO for the years under consideration, assessee filed appeal

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)

Depreciation Espana SA Vs. ACIT(IT)/DCIT(IT), Bangalore, IT(TA) No. 2657/Bang/2019, 180/Bang/2021 & 817/Bang/2022 order dated 10.08.2023 and the ITAT has categorically held that roaming charges are neither FTS or Royalty. The relevant paras of the order are extracted below: “3. Aggrieved by the final assessment orders passed by the Ld.AO for the years under consideration, assessee filed appeal

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)

Depreciation Espana SA Vs. ACIT(IT)/DCIT(IT), Bangalore, IT(TA) No. 2657/Bang/2019, 180/Bang/2021 & 817/Bang/2022 order dated 10.08.2023 and the ITAT has categorically held that roaming charges are neither FTS or Royalty. The relevant paras of the order are extracted below: “3. Aggrieved by the final assessment orders passed by the Ld.AO for the years under consideration, assessee filed appeal

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE vs. COMMANDER INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and CO of assessee are dismissed

vi)B. Raveendran Pillai vs. CIT 194 taxman 477 (Kerala)\n(vii)Desney Broadcasting (India) (P.) Ltd. vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 163 taxmann.com 40\n4.1 Ld. AR has heavily relied the impugned order of the CIT(A) and submitted that the CIT(A) has allowed the claim of depreciation on goodwill by following the various judgments

M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

36 Shri Jairam Education Society ITA No.90 & 548/Ind/2019 non maintenance of regular books of accounts, violations of provisions of Sec.13(1)( c) of the Act in as much as the trustees were paid enormous salary are all by way of passing reference having norelevance to whether or not the Assessee was pursuing education as its main object. There

M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. ACIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

36 Shri Jairam Education Society ITA No.90 & 548/Ind/2019 non maintenance of regular books of accounts, violations of provisions of Sec.13(1)( c) of the Act in as much as the trustees were paid enormous salary are all by way of passing reference having norelevance to whether or not the Assessee was pursuing education as its main object. There

THE DCIT (CENTRAL), INDORE vs. M/S KETI CONSTRUCTION (INDIA) LTD. , INDORE

In the result all the grounds raised by Revenue in the case of

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

vi] s 153A and due taxes along with interest was also paid. In this respect the respondent places reliance on its detailed explanation and workings on the basis of which these amounts were offered u/s 132(4) and also on the written submissions filed before the Investigation Wing and also during the course of assessment proceedings, which have also been

THE DCIT-CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S. KALYAN TOLL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., INDORE

In the result all the grounds raised by Revenue in the case of

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

vi] s 153A and due taxes along with interest was also paid. In this respect the respondent places reliance on its detailed explanation and workings on the basis of which these amounts were offered u/s 132(4) and also on the written submissions filed before the Investigation Wing and also during the course of assessment proceedings, which have also been

M/S RADHISHWARI DEVLOPERS P LTD,INDORE vs. PR CIT -2 INDORE, INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2013-14 M/S. Radhishwari Developers P. Ltd. (Now Known As R.C. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. ) Indore : Appellant Pan :Aafcr1916A V/S Pr. Cito-2 : Respondent Indore Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema Sr. Adv. With Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar Advs. Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 20.07.2021

depreciation at Rs.1,53,066/- to be carry forward for set up in subsequent years. 3. After passing of the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act, Ld. Pr. CIT examined the assessment records and documents filed by the assessee and notice that the M/s. Radheshwari Developers Pvt. Ltd. assessment order is prima facie, erroneous and prejudicial

COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2007-08 Computer Sciences Acit, Corporation India Private Company Circle 1(3), Limited, Chennai [Formerly Covansys (India) Private Limited], बनाम/ Unit 13, Block 2, Sdf Buildings, Vs. Madras Export Processing Zone, Tambaram, Chennai (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaacc1351M Assessee By Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. Shri Abhishek Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement

depreciation on software, and (v) disallowance u/s 14A. With such disallowances/additions, the AO proposed to determine total income at Rs. 65,98,26,453/-. Against draft- assessment order, the assessee filed objection dated 28.01.2011 to Disputes Resolution Panel (DRP). The DRP passed order dated 08.09.2011 u/s 144C(5) of the act whereby the objections of assessee were turned down

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

depreciation and finance charges totalling to Rs. 2,50,89,822/- debited in the profit and loss account came to 4.83% which approximated the net profit rate of 5% approved by the Hon’ble Co-ordinate Bench itself in the case of the assessee for the A.Y. 2009-10. It is also an uncontroverted finding of fact that

THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

depreciation and finance charges totalling to Rs. 2,50,89,822/- debited in the profit and loss account came to 4.83% which approximated the net profit rate of 5% approved by the Hon’ble Co-ordinate Bench itself in the case of the assessee for the A.Y. 2009-10. It is also an uncontroverted finding of fact that

THE AIT,ENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SURYA INFRAVENTURE P LTD, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

depreciation and finance charges totalling to Rs. 2,50,89,822/- debited in the profit and loss account came to 4.83% which approximated the net profit rate of 5% approved by the Hon’ble Co-ordinate Bench itself in the case of the assessee for the A.Y. 2009-10. It is also an uncontroverted finding of fact that

DILIP BUILDCON LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

vi) As per ld. A.O. said project/projects were allotted in the name of SPV (Special Purpose Vehicle) and not in the name of assessee company, so deduction claimed u/s 80IA (4) is not allowable to the assessee. 13.5. In respect of the above contentions of the Ld. AO, Ld. CIT (A) has countered each of the contentions in details

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL vs. DILIP BUILDCON LIMITED, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

vi) As per ld. A.O. said project/projects were allotted in the name of SPV (Special Purpose Vehicle) and not in the name of assessee company, so deduction claimed u/s 80IA (4) is not allowable to the assessee. 13.5. In respect of the above contentions of the Ld. AO, Ld. CIT (A) has countered each of the contentions in details

DILIP BUILDCON LTD.,BHOPAL vs. DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

vi) As per ld. A.O. said project/projects were allotted in the name of SPV (Special Purpose Vehicle) and not in the name of assessee company, so deduction claimed u/s 80IA (4) is not allowable to the assessee. 13.5. In respect of the above contentions of the Ld. AO, Ld. CIT (A) has countered each of the contentions in details

SHRI DILIP BUILDCON LTD,BHOPAL vs. DCIT CENTRAL -1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

vi) As per ld. A.O. said project/projects were allotted in the name of SPV (Special Purpose Vehicle) and not in the name of assessee company, so deduction claimed u/s 80IA (4) is not allowable to the assessee. 13.5. In respect of the above contentions of the Ld. AO, Ld. CIT (A) has countered each of the contentions in details

DILIP BUILDCON LTD.,BHOPAL vs. DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

vi) As per ld. A.O. said project/projects were allotted in the name of SPV (Special Purpose Vehicle) and not in the name of assessee company, so deduction claimed u/s 80IA (4) is not allowable to the assessee. 13.5. In respect of the above contentions of the Ld. AO, Ld. CIT (A) has countered each of the contentions in details