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

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

9 - clause (b) and clause (c) of [Explanation] to clause (23FB) of section 10; "(Emphasis Supplied) 1.17. Rule 11UA of the IT Rules, inter alia, prescribes the method of valuation of shares for the purpose of section 56(2)(viib) of the IT Act The relevant extract of Rule 11UA is reproduced below for ready reference: "(2) Notwithstanding anything contained

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)

2 to s. 9(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

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)

2 to s. 9(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

M/S ISOFT HEALTH MANAGEMENT (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanicomputer Sciences Dcit, Circle 11(4) Corporation India Private No. 14/3, 5Th Floor, R.P. Limited Bhawan Nrupathunga (Formerly Isoft Health Road Vs. Management (India) Pvt. Bangalore Ltd.) Unit-13, Block-2, Sdf Building Mpez Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaaco 2465N Assessee By Shri Vishal Kalra, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 03.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.08.2023

Section 92CA of the Act. If the Assessing Officer considers it necessary to determine arm's length price in relation to international transaction, with previous approval of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, as the case may be, refer the matter to the Transfer Pricing Officer. Therefore, the reference to be made to the Transfer Pricing Officer is after previous approval

MAHENDRA SINGH CHAWLA,INDORE vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimahendra Singh Chawla Dcit Circle -1(1) 4/35 Gram Pigdamber A.B. Indore Road Near Rao Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aazpc0120C Assessee By None Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 02.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04 .09.2024

price and has taken possession of the property even though the transfer deed or conveyance has not been registered. In such cases the transferor is debarred from agitating his title to the property against the purchaser Let us analyze provisions of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Page 8 of 21 ITANo.245/Ind/2024 Mahendra Singh Chawla 53A. Part

ACIT-2(1), UJJAIN, UJJAIN vs. M/S RUCHI J OIL PVT. LTD,, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2014-15

9. Fails to keep and maintain any such information and document as required by sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 92D; 10. Fails to report such transaction which is required to do so; or 11. Maintains or furnishes an incorrect information or document, The AO or Commissioner (Appeals) may direct that such person shall

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

price so declared was accepted by Indian Customs Department for collecting customs duty. In other words in customs proceedings the said Revenue department accepted the declared value of plant and equipment supplied by the foreign companies and where the 36 Birla Corporation Ltd. ITA No.33 & 34/Ind/2020 property in the goods supplied was transferred outside India. On these facts therefore

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

price so declared was accepted by Indian Customs Department for collecting customs duty. In other words in customs proceedings the said Revenue department accepted the declared value of plant and equipment supplied by the foreign companies and where the 36 Birla Corporation Ltd. ITA No.33 & 34/Ind/2020 property in the goods supplied was transferred outside India. On these facts therefore

M/S RUCHI J OIL PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. PCIT(A)UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (In short ‘ Ld.TPO”) u/s 92CA(1) of the Act for the computation of arms length price. Ld. TPO called for the necessary information after issuing notice u/s 92CA(2) of the Act and was of the view that no adjustment is required to be made to the arms length price of the transaction. After receiving the order

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

2 to Sec. 9(1)(a) M/s Buhler India Pvt. Ltd. has not acted as an agent for its Non Resident Principal Company M/s Buhler AG Switzerland. The Assessee company has purchased the Material on Principal to Principal Basis. Thus no liability of TDS u/s 195 is attracted on said payment made to non-residents. In reply to notice issued

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

2 to Sec. 9(1)(a) M/s Buhler India Pvt. Ltd. has not acted as an agent for its Non Resident Principal Company M/s Buhler AG Switzerland. The Assessee company has purchased the Material on Principal to Principal Basis. Thus no liability of TDS u/s 195 is attracted on said payment made to non-residents. In reply to notice issued

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

2. The ld. AO and Hon'ble DRP Members have erred in law and facts by upholding the action of the Ld. TPO wherein the Ld. TPO has erred in law and in facts, for not providing any reasons for disregarding the assessee’s approach of determining the arm’s length price at an entity level in the Transfer Pricing

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

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

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 9, 73, 14,004/- made by TPO is hereby deleted.” M/s. Agrawal Coal Corporation vs. DCIT and DCIT Vs. Agrawal Coal Corporation T.P.A. Nos.601 & 602/Ind/2015 and 607 & 622/Ind/2015/A.Y.2009-10 & 10-11Page 74 of 127 2.5.9. We have given our careful thoughts to above findings and fully subscribe the same. In the light of the above

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

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

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 9, 73, 14,004/- made by TPO is hereby deleted.” M/s. Agrawal Coal Corporation vs. DCIT and DCIT Vs. Agrawal Coal Corporation T.P.A. Nos.601 & 602/Ind/2015 and 607 & 622/Ind/2015/A.Y.2009-10 & 10-11Page 74 of 127 2.5.9. We have given our careful thoughts to above findings and fully subscribe the same. In the light of the above

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

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

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 9, 73, 14,004/- made by TPO is hereby deleted.” M/s. Agrawal Coal Corporation vs. DCIT and DCIT Vs. Agrawal Coal Corporation T.P.A. Nos.601 & 602/Ind/2015 and 607 & 622/Ind/2015/A.Y.2009-10 & 10-11Page 74 of 127 2.5.9. We have given our careful thoughts to above findings and fully subscribe the same. In the light of the above

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

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

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 9, 73, 14,004/- made by TPO is hereby deleted.” M/s. Agrawal Coal Corporation vs. DCIT and DCIT Vs. Agrawal Coal Corporation T.P.A. Nos.601 & 602/Ind/2015 and 607 & 622/Ind/2015/A.Y.2009-10 & 10-11Page 74 of 127 2.5.9. We have given our careful thoughts to above findings and fully subscribe the same. In the light of the above

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