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

Appeals are allowed

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

68 Taxmann.com 8 (Delhi) 5. Neo Sport Broadcast (P.) Ltd. [2019] 107 Taxmann.com 17 (Bombay) 6. Viacom18 Media (P.) Ltd. [2022] 134 taxmann.com 243 (Mumbai -Trib.) - Para 9 page 656 of PB which has followed Bom HC decision in Neo Sports as opposed to earlier ITAT adverse view in own case 7. J&P Coats Ltd. No.11/Bang/2014, ITA 382 & 1493/Bang/2015

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

Appeals are allowed

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

68 Taxmann.com 8 (Delhi) 5. Neo Sport Broadcast (P.) Ltd. [2019] 107 Taxmann.com 17 (Bombay) 6. Viacom18 Media (P.) Ltd. [2022] 134 taxmann.com 243 (Mumbai -Trib.) - Para 9 page 656 of PB which has followed Bom HC decision in Neo Sports as opposed to earlier ITAT adverse view in own case 7. J&P Coats Ltd. No.11/Bang/2014, ITA 382 & 1493/Bang/2015

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

Appeals are allowed

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

68 Taxmann.com 8 (Delhi) 5. Neo Sport Broadcast (P.) Ltd. [2019] 107 Taxmann.com 17 (Bombay) 6. Viacom18 Media (P.) Ltd. [2022] 134 taxmann.com 243 (Mumbai -Trib.) - Para 9 page 656 of PB which has followed Bom HC decision in Neo Sports as opposed to earlier ITAT adverse view in own case 7. J&P Coats Ltd. No.11/Bang/2014, ITA 382 & 1493/Bang/2015

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)

Section 194J read with clause (b) of the Explanation to Section 194J of the Income Tax Act, 1961, [`Act', for short] which, inter alia, states that "fees for technical services" shall have the same meaning as contained in Explanation 2 to clause (vii) of Section 9(1) of the Act. Right from 1979 various judgments

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)

Section 194J read with clause (b) of the Explanation to Section 194J of the Income Tax Act, 1961, [`Act', for short] which, inter alia, states that "fees for technical services" shall have the same meaning as contained in Explanation 2 to clause (vii) of Section 9(1) of the Act. Right from 1979 various judgments

THE DCIT, 1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. MODERN LABORATORIES, INDORE

In the result, the CO of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./ ./ ./ I.T.A. No.277 & Co.16/Ind/2014 ./ "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-09

6) issued to such parties who have directly confirmed the transaction. However, the AO made the addition of Rs.1,48,00, 000 under section 68 of the Act. 11. Being, aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A). During the course of appellate proceedings, confirmation letters, copy of acknowledgement of returns, copy of bank account

ACIT 2 (1), INDORE vs. M/S JILA INDUSTRIES LTD, DHAR

In the result this appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R.Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyanivirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2010-11 Acit-2(1), Indore M/S. Jiji Industries Ltd., (Formerly Known As बनाम/ Krishna Profiles Pvt. Ltd.), Vs. Plot No.316, Sejwaya, Billod, Dhar (Mp) (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A.N. - Aacck 1383 M Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ca Date Of Hearing: 02.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.02.2022

6 Jiji Industries Ltd. (formerly known as Krishna Profiles P. Ltd.) payment as business expenditure. During assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO called for the details of commission expenditure but the assessee did not submit. Therefore, while completing assessment, the Ld. AO disallowed this commission expenditure by observing as under: “Selling Expenses include Commission on Export Sales amounting

ITO 2(5), INDORE vs. M/S I PARADISE INFOMEDIA P LTD., INDORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68 taxmann.com 8 (Delhi).” 3. As these companies are of Canada and USA and in view of the Double Taxation Treaty with the Government of USA and India and particularly under Article 7 thereof as there is no permanent establishment of the assessee company in India, the income would liable to be taxed in the contracting state

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

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)(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 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)(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

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)(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

ULTIMATE CONSTRUCTION,BHOPAL vs. DCIT-1(1), BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2010-11 Ultimate Construction, Dcit-1(1), G-1, Kamdenu Tower, Bhopal बनाम/ E-2/21, Arera Colony, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Aabfu9241J Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, C.A. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.02.2024

6,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case of the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A)-3 was not justified in confirming the addition against unsecured loan amounting to Rs. 20,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 4. That

LATE SHRI RAMANAND TAPARIA TH/LH CHANDADEVI TAPARIA ,INDORE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTREQ, DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurpose

68 (cash credits),\nSection 69A (unexplained money), Section 69B (undisclosed\ninvestments), Section 69C (unexplained expenditure), or\nSection 69D (amount borrowed or repaid on hundi). The\nAssessing Officer can make additions under any of these\nsections, if applicable, in addition to Section 69.\nThe burden of proof lies on the assessee to prove the identity,\ncreditworthiness, and genuineness

LATE SHRI RAMANAND TAPARIA TH/LH CHANDA DEVI TAPARIA,INDORE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurpose

68 (cash credits),\nSection 69A (unexplained money), Section 69B (undisclosed\ninvestments), Section 69C (unexplained expenditure), or\nSection 69D (amount borrowed or repaid on hundi). The\nAssessing Officer can make additions under any of these\nsections, if applicable, in addition to Section 69.\nThe burden of proof lies on the assessee to prove the identity,\ncreditworthiness, and genuineness

THE ACIT, 3(1), INDORE vs. SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR SETHI, INDORE

In the result appeal filed by the revenue being I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

195 and Mod Creations (P) ltd (2013) 354 ITR 282 (Del). Since appellant discharged initial onus, the onus shifted on revenue and there was no legal obligation on the appellant to produce directors of creditors before AO and if AO had any doubt about identity of share applicants despite their filing income tax returns, he could have summoned them

THE ACIT, 3(1), INDORE vs. SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR SETHI, INDORE

In the result appeal filed by the revenue being I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

195 and Mod Creations (P) ltd (2013) 354 ITR 282 (Del). Since appellant discharged initial onus, the onus shifted on revenue and there was no legal obligation on the appellant to produce directors of creditors before AO and if AO had any doubt about identity of share applicants despite their filing income tax returns, he could have summoned them

SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR SETHI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3(1), INDORE

In the result appeal filed by the revenue being I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

195 and Mod Creations (P) ltd (2013) 354 ITR 282 (Del). Since appellant discharged initial onus, the onus shifted on revenue and there was no legal obligation on the appellant to produce directors of creditors before AO and if AO had any doubt about identity of share applicants despite their filing income tax returns, he could have summoned them