BUTTERCUP PUBLISHING PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ITO INT TAX. 1(1)(2), DELHI

ITITA 19/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 September 2026AY 2019-204 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What were the facts?

The assessee, Buttercup Publishing Private Limited, is in appeal against the order of the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, Panaji, dated 16.01.2026, for Assessment Year 2019-20. The Assessing Officer (AO) had held the assessee in default under sections 195, 201(1), and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for non-deduction of tax at source on payments aggregating Rs.86,79,484/- to M/s. Buttercup Publishing Ltd. and Rs.12,66,410/- to M/s. Reed Exhibitions Ltd., treating these as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) taxable in India under Article 13 of the India-UK DTAA. The total demand raised was Rs.26,51,180/-. The assessee contended that four of the alleged payments were not made, and for the remaining four, the 'make available' condition under Article 13(4)(c) of the India-UK DTAA was not met. The assessee sought to furnish additional evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's contention that four of the alleged payments were not made, and for the remaining four, the 'make available' condition under Article 13(4C) of the India-UK DTAA was not satisfied, as the payments were for consultancy services. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had placed additional evidence, including bank statements, service agreements, and a reconciliation statement, which appeared necessary for determining the correct tax liability. Citing the principle that the State cannot collect more taxes than due, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore the issue back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for re-examination. The AO is directed to consider the additional evidence, afford the assessee a reasonable opportunity of making submissions, and pass an order in accordance with law. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessee was liable to deduct tax at source under Section 195 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on payments made to M/s. Buttercup Publishing Ltd. and M/s. Reed Exhibitions Ltd., treating them as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under Article 13 of the India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA)? Assessee's contentions: Four of the alleged payments were not made by the assessee, thus no TDS liability arises. For the remaining four payments, the 'make available' condition under Article 13(4)(c) of the India-UK DTAA was not satisfied, meaning the services were not rendered in a manner that made the technical knowledge available to the assessee. The assessee also sought to admit additional evidence, including bank statements, service agreements, and a reconciliation statement, to substantiate its claims. Revenue's contentions: The revenue vehemently opposed the application for filing fresh evidence at the second appellate stage, arguing that the assessee failed to produce necessary evidence before the AO and the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 195,Section 201(1),Section 201(1A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI

Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY & SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN

For Respondent: Shri EV Bhaskar, Sr. DR

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, Panaji [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 16.01.2026, for Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Shri Tanmay Vivek Dhakras, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the assessee is engaged in the business of publication of books. The Assessing Officer (A

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 195

All 2,796 judgments and leading authorities on Section 195 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →