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 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)

1)(vii) would also have to be construed as involving a human element • The expression 'technical service' would have reference to only technical service rendered by a human. Page 36 of 65 ITA No. 415/Ind/2014 & 265/Ind/2018 – AY 2010-11 M/s Vodafone Idea Ltd. (Formerly M/s Idea Cellular Ltd.) • MTNL or other companies do not provide any assistance to the 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)

1)(vii) would also have to be construed as involving a human element • The expression 'technical service' would have reference to only technical service rendered by a human. Page 36 of 65 ITA No. 415/Ind/2014 & 265/Ind/2018 – AY 2010-11 M/s Vodafone Idea Ltd. (Formerly M/s Idea Cellular Ltd.) • MTNL or other companies do not provide any assistance to the assessee

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

transferring PAN of the assesse society from DCIT(E), Bhopal to ACIT(central) -2 Bhopal. Once the PAN is migrated then CIT(E) seize to have any jurisdiction over the assessee with regard to any of proceedings under the Act. We accordingly dismiss the additional grounds raised by the assessee. Shri Jairam Education Society ITA No.90 & 548/Ind/2019 15. Apropos

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

transferring PAN of the assesse society from DCIT(E), Bhopal to ACIT(central) -2 Bhopal. Once the PAN is migrated then CIT(E) seize to have any jurisdiction over the assessee with regard to any of proceedings under the Act. We accordingly dismiss the additional grounds raised by the assessee. Shri Jairam Education Society ITA No.90 & 548/Ind/2019 15. Apropos

M/S. AGRAWAL COAL CORPORATION P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT RANGE 1(1), INDORE

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

iv) erred in deleting the aforesaid addition while observing that the TPO failed to show any evidence for proving incorrect FAR analysis. The CIT (A) has not appreciated the facts mentioned by the TPO in Para 5.1 to 5.7 in TP order wherein specific defects in the FAR analysis have been pointed out by the TPO. (v) erred in deleting

THE DCIT-1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. AGRAWAL COAL CORPORATION P. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

iv) erred in deleting the aforesaid addition while observing that the TPO failed to show any evidence for proving incorrect FAR analysis. The CIT (A) has not appreciated the facts mentioned by the TPO in Para 5.1 to 5.7 in TP order wherein specific defects in the FAR analysis have been pointed out by the TPO. (v) erred in deleting

M/S. AGRAWAL COAL CORPORATION P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT -CIRCLE 1(1), INDORE

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

iv) erred in deleting the aforesaid addition while observing that the TPO failed to show any evidence for proving incorrect FAR analysis. The CIT (A) has not appreciated the facts mentioned by the TPO in Para 5.1 to 5.7 in TP order wherein specific defects in the FAR analysis have been pointed out by the TPO. (v) erred in deleting

THE DCIT1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. AGRAWAL COAL CORPORATION P LTD., INDORE

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

iv) erred in deleting the aforesaid addition while observing that the TPO failed to show any evidence for proving incorrect FAR analysis. The CIT (A) has not appreciated the facts mentioned by the TPO in Para 5.1 to 5.7 in TP order wherein specific defects in the FAR analysis have been pointed out by the TPO. (v) erred in deleting

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

1: 5. This ground is general and does not require any specific adjudication. Ground No. 2 to 19: 6. In these grounds, the assessee has challenged the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 37,69,02,830/- made by AO. 7. Apropos to this issue, the facts are such that the assessee-company was a wholly-owned subsidiary of “Covansys (Mauritius

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

IV, Mumbai (hereinafter referred as ”DRP”). Since the issue in these appeals are common in nature, these appeals are clubbed together and being disposed-of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. The Assessee and the Revenue has taken following grounds of appeal in – T.P.A. No. 157/Ind/2015:A.Y. 2010-11 Transfer Pricing Grounds 1. The Learned

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

IV, Mumbai (hereinafter referred as ”DRP”). Since the issue in these appeals are common in nature, these appeals are clubbed together and being disposed-of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. The Assessee and the Revenue has taken following grounds of appeal in – T.P.A. No. 157/Ind/2015:A.Y. 2010-11 Transfer Pricing Grounds 1. The Learned

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

IV, Mumbai (hereinafter referred as ”DRP”). Since the issue in these appeals are common in nature, these appeals are clubbed together and being disposed-of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. The Assessee and the Revenue has taken following grounds of appeal in – T.P.A. No. 157/Ind/2015:A.Y. 2010-11 Transfer Pricing Grounds 1. The Learned

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

IV, Mumbai (hereinafter referred as ”DRP”). Since the issue in these appeals are common in nature, these appeals are clubbed together and being disposed-of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. The Assessee and the Revenue has taken following grounds of appeal in – T.P.A. No. 157/Ind/2015:A.Y. 2010-11 Transfer Pricing Grounds 1. The Learned

ACIT (CENTRAL UJJAIN, UJJAIN vs. M/S ARIHANT FUTURE AND COMMODITIES LTD, INDORE

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicialmember & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing &

transferred in the name of the subsequent buyer. NSEL also charged various charges such as warehousing charges, insurance etc for this facility provided by it to the investors / traders. The delivery of these goods lying at the warehouses could be taken by the investor / trader, in which case the party would have to arrange for transportation and further storage

THE ACIT, CENTRAL - UJJAIN, INDORE vs. M/S ARIHANT FUTURE & COMMADITIES LTD , INDORE

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicialmember & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing &

transferred in the name of the subsequent buyer. NSEL also charged various charges such as warehousing charges, insurance etc for this facility provided by it to the investors / traders. The delivery of these goods lying at the warehouses could be taken by the investor / trader, in which case the party would have to arrange for transportation and further storage

THE ACIT ,CENTRAL-UJJAIN, INDORE vs. M/S ARIHANT CAPITALS MARKETS LTD , INDORE

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicialmember & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing &

transferred in the name of the subsequent buyer. NSEL also charged various charges such as warehousing charges, insurance etc for this facility provided by it to the investors / traders. The delivery of these goods lying at the warehouses could be taken by the investor / trader, in which case the party would have to arrange for transportation and further storage

ACIT 5 (1), BHOPAL vs. M/S VINDHYA SOLVENT PVT. LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy& Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

price and consequently the share premium, it cannot be said that share premium solely, depends on the future realizable value of profits. In any case, this observation is legally not relevant in view of express provision of law. 8.33 In view of the totality of facts and legal position, as the law i.e. section 56(2)(viib) and Rule 11UA