THE ACIT, - 4(1), INDORE vs. M/S. YASH TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2014-15 Pan : Aaacy1868M

201-205, Bansi Trade Centre, 581/5, M.G. Road, Indore (Revenue) (Respondent) Revenue by Smt. Ashima Gupta, CIT Assessee by Shri S.S. Solanki, CA Date of Hearing 10.10.2019 Date of Pronouncement 31.10.2019 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD. The above captioned appeal filed at the instance of revenue pertaining to Assessment Year 2014-15 is directed against the orders

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

transfer for limited right to use and they are composite payment of royalty which is also covered by 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

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

transfer for limited right to use and they are composite payment of royalty which is also covered by 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

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

transfer for limited right to use and they are composite payment of royalty which is also covered by 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

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

transfer for limited right to use and they are composite payment of royalty which is also covered by 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

M/S ANDRITZ HYDRO PRIVATE LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Andritz Hydro Private Dcit Circe 1(1) Ltd. Bhopal Vs. D-17, Mpakvn Industrial Area, Mandideep Raisen (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcv 2466 R Assessee By Shri Rahul, Kaul Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 13.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.08.2023

section 92D(1) and rules made thereunder or the information or data used in computation of arm’s length price is not reliable or correct. A similar explanation has been provided by the CBDT in circular no.12 dated 23rd August 2001. Thus, the Ld. AR has submitted as per the circular issued by the CBDT the TPO was bound

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 of the High Courts

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 of the High Courts

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

Appeals are allowed

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

Section 194J of the Act is not attracted in the case of "revenue sharing contract". According to Respondent No.1, in such contracts there is only sharing of revenue and, therefore, payments by revenue sharing cannot constitute "fees" under Section 194J of the Act. This submission is not accepted by the Department. We leave it there because this submission

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

Appeals are allowed

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

Section 194J of the Act is not attracted in the case of "revenue sharing contract". According to Respondent No.1, in such contracts there is only sharing of revenue and, therefore, payments by revenue sharing cannot constitute "fees" under Section 194J of the Act. This submission is not accepted by the Department. We leave it there because this submission

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

Appeals are allowed

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

Section 194J of the Act is not attracted in the case of "revenue sharing contract". According to Respondent No.1, in such contracts there is only sharing of revenue and, therefore, payments by revenue sharing cannot constitute "fees" under Section 194J of the Act. This submission is not accepted by the Department. We leave it there because this submission

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

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 an initial observation that section 90(4) of the Act requires production of Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) for claiming benefit of DTAA. But the assessee

M/S TESLA TRANSFORMERS ,BHOPAL vs. ITO(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, BHOPAL

In the result, Ground Numbers 1 to 4 of assessee’s appeal are dismissed

price negotiation leading the conclusion of contract. In the case of Toyota Corporation Japan, a specific authority has been given to employees of TTISL, India (its subsidiary) to sign contracts on its behalf of Toyota Corporation, Japan as per Memorandum of Understanding produced by the AO in the 201 order. Accordingly, looking into the totality of facts placed before

HERSHEY INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO ( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION & TRANSFER PRICING) , BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Transfer House, Hiranandani Vs Pricing), Gardens, Powai, Bhopal Mumbai-400076 (Respondent) PAN: AABCT6106C (Appellant) Assessee by: Shri Anil Khabya, A.R. Revenue by: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 13-10-2022 Date of pronouncement : 02 -12-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- These two appeals filed by assessee for A.Ys. 2015-16 & 2016-17 arise from

HERSHEY INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO ( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION & TRANSFER PRICING) , BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Transfer House, Hiranandani Vs Pricing), Gardens, Powai, Bhopal Mumbai-400076 (Respondent) PAN: AABCT6106C (Appellant) Assessee by: Shri Anil Khabya, A.R. Revenue by: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 13-10-2022 Date of pronouncement : 02 -12-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- These two appeals filed by assessee for A.Ys. 2015-16 & 2016-17 arise from

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

Transfer Pricing, Bhopal [“Ld. AO”] u/s 201(1)/(1A) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2015-16, the assessee has filed this appeal on following effective ground: “Learned Assessing Officer was not justified to decide the TDS on remittance of Rs. 24,33,853/- to University of Cambridge, UK, which is for examination fee, books

M/S SANGHVI FOODS P LTD, ,INDORE vs. ITO (IT & TP) , BHOPAL

In the result common issue raised in

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

price* Send to P.O for confirmation* We have received confirmation order* ITANo.743 & 744/Ind/2018 Sanghvi Foods Private Limited Transfer the amount by bank as per T&C of P.O*. Vendor confirm the payment* Vendor send the schedule of dispatch of goods like by Air/Sea and other detail* We have given contract for clearance of goods to CHA* CHA clear Goods from

M/S SANGHVI FOODS P LTD, ,INDORE vs. ITO (IT & TP) , BHOPAL

In the result common issue raised in

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

price* Send to P.O for confirmation* We have received confirmation order* ITANo.743 & 744/Ind/2018 Sanghvi Foods Private Limited Transfer the amount by bank as per T&C of P.O*. Vendor confirm the payment* Vendor send the schedule of dispatch of goods like by Air/Sea and other detail* We have given contract for clearance of goods to CHA* CHA clear Goods from

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

201 the appellant had filed copies of invoices raised by the foreign suppliers and other documents prepared at the time of processing of documents by the Customs department while complying import formalities and payment of duties. With reference to these documents it was clarified that the prices specified in the purchase order or agreements matched with the prices specified