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

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. 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

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

Section 92C (4) of the Act. The submission was not found acceptable due to the reasons given in detail in the orders of TPO giving detailed working of Arm’s length adjustment in respect of Coal Purchase from its AE and the AO made the additions to the total income on account of the adjustments in the arm’s length

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

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

Section 92C (4) of the Act. The submission was not found acceptable due to the reasons given in detail in the orders of TPO giving detailed working of Arm’s length adjustment in respect of Coal Purchase from its AE and the AO made the additions to the total income on account of the adjustments in the arm’s length

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

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

Section 92C (4) of the Act. The submission was not found acceptable due to the reasons given in detail in the orders of TPO giving detailed working of Arm’s length adjustment in respect of Coal Purchase from its AE and the AO made the additions to the total income on account of the adjustments in the arm’s length

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

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

Section 92C (4) of the Act. The submission was not found acceptable due to the reasons given in detail in the orders of TPO giving detailed working of Arm’s length adjustment in respect of Coal Purchase from its AE and the AO made the additions to the total income on account of the adjustments in the arm’s length

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

Transfer Pricing Regulations talk of individual transactions to be benchmarked. He submitted that the assessee made claim of ‘entity-level’ comparison before DRP also, but the DRP has over-ruled assessee’s claim with reasoning. Referring to Page 10 and 11 of DRP order, Ld. DR emphasized the reasoning given by DRP, Page 19 of 47 Computer Sciences Corporation India

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

43(1) as well as 32(1) is to restrict any unintended claims, particularly when transaction is not treated as transfer under section 47(vi) of the Act. Therefore, the assessee cannot take amount of capital asset different from amalgamating companies because the transactions would not be treated as transfer and cost of asset as to be same in case

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 144C and 92CA of Income Tax Act,1961(hereinafter referred as of ”the Act”) of the Deputy Commissioner of Income tax- 1(1),Bhopal (hereinafter referred as “the AO”), for the assessment year 2010-11 order dated 13.02.2015 and for the A.Y. 2011-12 order dated 22.02.2016 passed in pursuance of the directions issued by Dispute Resolution Panel

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 144C and 92CA of Income Tax Act,1961(hereinafter referred as of ”the Act”) of the Deputy Commissioner of Income tax- 1(1),Bhopal (hereinafter referred as “the AO”), for the assessment year 2010-11 order dated 13.02.2015 and for the A.Y. 2011-12 order dated 22.02.2016 passed in pursuance of the directions issued by Dispute Resolution Panel

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 144C and 92CA of Income Tax Act,1961(hereinafter referred as of ”the Act”) of the Deputy Commissioner of Income tax- 1(1),Bhopal (hereinafter referred as “the AO”), for the assessment year 2010-11 order dated 13.02.2015 and for the A.Y. 2011-12 order dated 22.02.2016 passed in pursuance of the directions issued by Dispute Resolution Panel

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 144C and 92CA of Income Tax Act,1961(hereinafter referred as of ”the Act”) of the Deputy Commissioner of Income tax- 1(1),Bhopal (hereinafter referred as “the AO”), for the assessment year 2010-11 order dated 13.02.2015 and for the A.Y. 2011-12 order dated 22.02.2016 passed in pursuance of the directions issued by Dispute Resolution Panel

M/S. BRIDGESTONE INDIA PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. THE ACIT NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanibridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. Acit (Nfac) Plot No.A-43, Phase-Ii, Delhi Midc Chakan, Village Vs. Sawardari, Taluka Khed, Pune (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcb 2304 E Assessee By Shri Sukhsagar Syal, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 23.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2023

transfer pricing documentation and economic analysis has passed an order dated 30.10.2018 under Section 92CA(3) of the Act determining the "Arm's Length Price" difference of Rs. 41,57,14,9471- in respect of royalty payment of its AE and Rs. 39,63,921/- in respect of international transactions relating to trading activities of the assessee. Thus, total upward

M/S. BRIDGESTONE INDIA PVT. LTD.,PUNA vs. THE ACIT-1(1), INDORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

transfer pricing documentation and economic analysis has passed an order dated 30.10.2018 Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT Asst.Year –2015-16 - 3 – under Section 92CA(3) of the Act determining the “Arm’s Length Price” difference of Rs. 41,57,14,947/- in respect of royalty payment of its AE and Rs. 39,63,921/- in respect of international transactions

MS MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT LTD,BHOPAL vs. ACIT 2 (1) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals are dismissed

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

price. P&G has constructed factory building on land and also installed plant and machinery. The plant and machinery does not belong to assessee but to P&G. Reimbursement of expenses is also made by P&G. The assessee is working for P&G, not for anybody else. These factors clearly show that the assessee is just an operator