18(3B) of the 1922 Act. In CIT v. Cooper Engineering Ltd.

68 ITR 457High Court1968#3988 most cited

What is 18(3B) of the 1922 Act. In CIT v. Cooper Engineering Ltd. authority for?

If a payment made by a resident to a non-resident is not chargeable to tax in India, then no tax is deductible at source, even if no application has been made under section 195(2). Taxability is a prerequisite for tax deduction at source.

30

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Cooper Engineering Ltd. · 68 ITR 457 · 1922 Act Section 18(3B) · 1961 Act Section 195 · taxability prerequisite for TDS · no tax deductible if not chargeable to tax

Sections most often in play

Section 195Section 250Section 40(a)(i)Section 9

Issues it is cited on

section 22fees for technical servicessection 195section 20section 19section 23personcompanyindianfactotal incomebusiness

Judgments citing 18(3B) of the 1922 Act. In CIT v. Cooper Engineering Ltd.

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),AGRA, AGRA vs. EMCO EXPORTS, AGRA

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 415/AGR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 9

…ductor can take into consideration the effect of DTAA in respect of payment of royalties and technical fees while deducting TAS. It may also be noted that Section 195(1) is in identical terms with Section 18(3B) of the 1922 Act. In CIT Vs. Cooper Engineering [68 ITR 457] it was pointed out that if the payment made by the resident to the non-resident was an amount which was not chargeable to tax in India, then no tax is deductible at source even though the assessee had not made an application under Section 18(3B) (now Section 195(2) of the I.T. Act). The application of Section 195(2) 8 | P a g e pre-supposes that…

ACIT CIRCLE-28(1), DELHI vs. SAM OVERSEAS, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 169/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Sr. Advocate
Section 195

…urred was neither royalty nor was a fee for technical services within the meaning of Explanation below the section. In support it had relied upon the following judgments:- 71 Cross I.T.A. Nos. 1695/Del/2020 & 169/Del/2021 (1) CIT s. Cooper Engineering Ltd. [68 ITR 457 (Bom.)] (ii) Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation vs. CIT [314 ITR 309 (SC)] (iii) Al Nisr Publishing [239 ITR 879 (AAR)] (iv) British Gas India Pvt. Ltd. in Re. [287 ITR 421], [239 ITR 879 (AAR)] 50.3 It is submitted that the aforesaid 'persons' to whom the commission had been paid are non-residents and does not have a PE in India. In fact it had be…

SAM OVERSEAS ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE- 24(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1695/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Sr. Advocate
Section 195

…urred was neither royalty nor was a fee for technical services within the meaning of Explanation below the section. In support it had relied upon the following judgments:- 71 Cross I.T.A. Nos. 1695/Del/2020 & 169/Del/2021 (1) CIT s. Cooper Engineering Ltd. [68 ITR 457 (Bom.)] (ii) Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation vs. CIT [314 ITR 309 (SC)] (iii) Al Nisr Publishing [239 ITR 879 (AAR)] (iv) British Gas India Pvt. Ltd. in Re. [287 ITR 421], [239 ITR 879 (AAR)] 50.3 It is submitted that the aforesaid 'persons' to whom the commission had been paid are non-residents and does not have a PE in India. In fact it had be…

PRASANTH NANDANURU,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 369/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Hiten Chande, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 192(1)Section 5(2)(a)Section 5(2)(b)Section 90

…for 'Collection and Recovery of Tax'. Chargeability to tax was a condition precedent and where the tax itself was not chargeable, there was no question of collection and recovery thereof. For this purpose, reliance is placed on CIT v. Cooper Engg. Ltd. [1968] 68 ITR 457 (Bom.) and Al Nisr PublishingIn re [1999] 239 ITR 879 (AAR). It was further contended that under the provisions of article 4(1) of the INDO-UK DTAA between India and the U.K., the employees were tax residents of the U.K., Article 16(1) of Page 7 of 11 ITA-IT No. 369/Hyd/2022 the INDO-UK DTAA provided that salary derived by a resident in the U.K.…

ASST. CIT 23 (1), MUMBAI vs. M/S AI QURESH EXPORTS , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 6261/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6261/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6262/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Acit-23(1) बिधम/ M/S. Ali Quresh Exports Room No.113, 1St Floor, 310, Rizvi Chambers, Hill Vs. Matru Mandir, Grant Road, Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai-400007. Mumbai-400050. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfa1292M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri S. S. Iyengar (Sr. Dr) Assessee By: Shri Rizwan Hussain Katolwala सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/09/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Above Mentioned Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 31.07.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-32, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2015-16 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Rizwan Hussain KatolwalaFor Respondent: Shri S. S. Iyengar (Sr. DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 195Section 40Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)Section 9(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM (Hearing through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6261/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6262/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) ACIT-23(1) बिधम/ M/s. Ali Quresh Exports Room No.113, 1st Floor, 310, Rizvi Chambers, Hill Vs. Matru Mandir, Grant Road, Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai-400007. Mumbai-400050. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AADFA1292M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue by: Shri S. S. Iyengar…

JAS FORWARDING WORLDWIDE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3296/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year:2007-08

For Respondent: Shri Robin Rawan, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

…the phrase "chargeable under the provisions of this Act" while deciding the issue of tax deduction at source by a person making payment to a non-resident. For this, the Hon’ble Court relied upon an earlier ruling in the case of CIT v. Cooper Engg. Ltd. (1968) 68 ITR 457 (Bom.), wherein it was pointed out that if the payment made by the resident to the non-resident was an amount which was not chargeable to tax in India, then no tax is deductible at source. iv. The Courts have considered the import of words "sum chargeable under the provisions of the Act" appearing in Section 195, which do not find place in other p…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S JAS FORWARDING WORLD PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3222/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year:2007-08

For Respondent: Shri Robin Rawan, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

…the phrase "chargeable under the provisions of this Act" while deciding the issue of tax deduction at source by a person making payment to a non-resident. For this, the Hon’ble Court relied upon an earlier ruling in the case of CIT v. Cooper Engg. Ltd. (1968) 68 ITR 457 (Bom.), wherein it was pointed out that if the payment made by the resident to the non-resident was an amount which was not chargeable to tax in India, then no tax is deductible at source. iv. The Courts have considered the import of words "sum chargeable under the provisions of the Act" appearing in Section 195, which do not find place in other p…

HANUMESH RELTORS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. TRO (RG) 1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4012/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar, D.R
Section 133ASection 195Section 195(1)Section 201Section 5(2)Section 9(1)(vii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Hanumesh Realtors Tax Recovery Officer Pvt. Ltd., (TDS) Range -1, Raaj Chamber, Charni Road, Plot No.115 115/IT-03, Vs. Mumbai R.K. Paramhans Marg, Andheri East, Mumbai – 400 069 PAN: AABCH 5774L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Pradeep Sharma, A.R. Revenue by : Shri V. Vidhyadhar, D.R. Date of Hearing : 09.07.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 23.07.2018 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member: The present ap…

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S WINSOME TEXTILES INDUSTRIES LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 933/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Tej Mohan SinghFor Respondent: Shri. D.S. Kalyan
Section 195Section 40Section 9

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH’B’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 932, 933, 804 & 1321/Chd/2017 (Assessment Years: 2011-12,2012-13 & 2013-14) The DCIT Vs. Winsome Yarns Ltd. Circle 4(1) SCO 191-192 Chandigarh Sector 34-A Chandigarh PAN: AAACW1911H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri. Tej Mohan Singh Department by : Shri. D.S. Kalyan Date of hearing : 11/04/2018 Date of Pronouncement : 18/05/2018 O R D E R PER DR.B.R.R.KUMAR, A.M. : All the above appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the order of th…

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S WINSOME YARNS LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 932/CHANDI/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Tej Mohan SinghFor Respondent: Shri. D.S. Kalyan
Section 195Section 40Section 9

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH’B’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 932, 933, 804 & 1321/Chd/2017 (Assessment Years: 2011-12,2012-13 & 2013-14) The DCIT Vs. Winsome Yarns Ltd. Circle 4(1) SCO 191-192 Chandigarh Sector 34-A Chandigarh PAN: AAACW1911H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri. Tej Mohan Singh Department by : Shri. D.S. Kalyan Date of hearing : 11/04/2018 Date of Pronouncement : 18/05/2018 O R D E R PER DR.B.R.R.KUMAR, A.M. : All the above appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the order of th…

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S WINSOME YARNS LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 804/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Tej Mohan SinghFor Respondent: Shri. D.S. Kalyan
Section 195Section 40Section 9

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH’B’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 932, 933, 804 & 1321/Chd/2017 (Assessment Years: 2011-12,2012-13 & 2013-14) The DCIT Vs. Winsome Yarns Ltd. Circle 4(1) SCO 191-192 Chandigarh Sector 34-A Chandigarh PAN: AAACW1911H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri. Tej Mohan Singh Department by : Shri. D.S. Kalyan Date of hearing : 11/04/2018 Date of Pronouncement : 18/05/2018 O R D E R PER DR.B.R.R.KUMAR, A.M. : All the above appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the order of th…

DCIT, C-4(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S WINSOME YARNS LTD,, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1321/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 May 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Tej Mohan SinghFor Respondent: Shri. D.S. Kalyan
Section 195Section 40Section 9

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH’B’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 932, 933, 804 & 1321/Chd/2017 (Assessment Years: 2011-12,2012-13 & 2013-14) The DCIT Vs. Winsome Yarns Ltd. Circle 4(1) SCO 191-192 Chandigarh Sector 34-A Chandigarh PAN: AAACW1911H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri. Tej Mohan Singh Department by : Shri. D.S. Kalyan Date of hearing : 11/04/2018 Date of Pronouncement : 18/05/2018 O R D E R PER DR.B.R.R.KUMAR, A.M. : All the above appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the order of th…

ACIT 11(2), MUMBAI vs. KPMG, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4503/MUM/2013[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Nov 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G. Manjunatha, Am

For Appellant: Arijit ChakravorthyFor Respondent: M.V. Raj Guru, AR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…consideration the effect of DTAA in respect of payment of royalties and technical fees while deducting TAS. It may also be noted that s. (A.Y.99-00, 01-2) 195(1) is in identical terms with s. 18(3B) of the 1922 Act. In CIT vs. Cooper Engineering Ltd. (1968) 68 ITR 457 (Bom) it was pointed out that if the payment made by the resident to the non-resident was an amount which was not chargeable to tax in India, then no tax is deductible at source even though the assessee had not made an application under s. 18(3B) [now s. 195(2) of the IT Act)]. The application of s. 195(2) presupposes that the person responsible f…

ACIT 11(2), MUMBAI vs. KPMG, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4479/MUM/2013[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Nov 2017AY 1999-00

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G. Manjunatha, Am

For Appellant: Arijit ChakravorthyFor Respondent: M.V. Raj Guru, AR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…consideration the effect of DTAA in respect of payment of royalties and technical fees while deducting TAS. It may also be noted that s. (A.Y.99-00, 01-2) 195(1) is in identical terms with s. 18(3B) of the 1922 Act. In CIT vs. Cooper Engineering Ltd. (1968) 68 ITR 457 (Bom) it was pointed out that if the payment made by the resident to the non-resident was an amount which was not chargeable to tax in India, then no tax is deductible at source even though the assessee had not made an application under s. 18(3B) [now s. 195(2) of the IT Act)]. The application of s. 195(2) presupposes that the person responsible f…

SWANSTON MULTIPLEX CINEMAS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 11(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1135/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2005-06 Swanston Multiplex Cinemas Acit, Private Limited, Circle-11(1), बनाम/ 9Th Floor, Viraj Towers, W.E. R. No.467, Vs. Highway Next To Andheri Aayakar Bhavan, Flyover Andheri (East), M. K. Road, Mumai-400093 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan No.:-Aafcs6295K

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 40

…ission Corporation of A.P. Ltd. vs. CIT (1999) 155 CTR (SC) 489 : (1999) 239 ITR 587 (SC) and Vijay Ship Breaking Corpn. & Ors. vs. CIT (2008) 219 CTR (SC) 639 : (2008) 14 DTR (SC) 74 : (2009) 314 ITR 309 (SC) relied on; CIT vs. Cooper Engineering Ltd. (1968) 68 ITR 457 (Bom) impliedly approved. (Paras 7 & 8) Sec. 195 falls in Chapter XVII which deals with collection and recovery. Chapter XVII-B deals with deduction at source by the payer. On analysis of various provisions of Chapter XVII one finds use of different expressions, however, the expression "sum chargeable under the provisions of the Act" is used onl…

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. PARADEEP PHOSPHATES LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and that of

ITA 289/CTK/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack04 Aug 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri B.K.MohapatraFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, CIT DR
Section 195Section 195(1)Section 195(2)Section 197Section 263Section 40Section 92

…an take into consideration the effect of the DTAA in respect of payment of royalties and technical fees while deducting TAS. It may also be noted that section 195(1) is in identical terms with section 18(3B) of the 1922 Act. In CIT v. Cooper Engg. Ltd. [19681 68 ITR 457 (Bom.) it was pointed out that if the payment made by the resident to the non-resident is an amount which is not chargeable to tax in India, then no tax is deductible at source even though the assessee may not have made an application under section 18(3B) [now section 195(2)]. The application of section 195(2) pre-supposes that the person responsi…

DCIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. EXPRO GULF LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 6589/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Arora, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 44BSection 44DSection 9(1)(vii)

…ctober 30, 1995 the CBDT has clarified that the tax deductor can take into consideration the effect of while deducting TAS. It may also be noted that Section 195(1) is in identical terms with Section 18(3B) of the 1922 Act, In CIT v. Cooper Engineering [1968] 68 ITR 457 (Bom.) it was pointed out that if the payment made by the resident to the non-resident was an amount which was not chargeable to tax in India, then no tax is deductible at source even though the assessee had not made an application under Section 18(3B) (now Section 195(2) of the I. T. Act). The application of Section 195(2) pre-supposes that the p…

DELOITTE HASKINS AND SELLS,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 11(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5097/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 244ASection 40

…ransmission Corporation of A. Ltd. vs. CIT (1999) 155 CTR (SC) 489: (1999) 239 ITR 587 (SC) and Vijay Ship Breaking Corpn. & Ors. vs. CIT (2008) 219 CTR (SC) 639: (2008) 14 DTR (SC) 74: (2009) 314 ITR 309 (SC) relied on; CIT vs. Cooper Engineering Ltd. (1968) 68 ITR 457 (Bom) impliedly approved. Sec. 195 falls in Chapter XVII which deals with collection and recovery. Chapter XVII-B deals with deduction at source by the payer. On analysis of various provisions of Chapter XVII one finds use of different expressions, however, the expression "sum chargeable under the provisions of the Act" is used only in s. 195. In…

DELOITTE HASKINS AND SELLS,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 11(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5096/MUM/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 244ASection 40

…ransmission Corporation of A. Ltd. vs. CIT (1999) 155 CTR (SC) 489: (1999) 239 ITR 587 (SC) and Vijay Ship Breaking Corpn. & Ors. vs. CIT (2008) 219 CTR (SC) 639: (2008) 14 DTR (SC) 74: (2009) 314 ITR 309 (SC) relied on; CIT vs. Cooper Engineering Ltd. (1968) 68 ITR 457 (Bom) impliedly approved. Sec. 195 falls in Chapter XVII which deals with collection and recovery. Chapter XVII-B deals with deduction at source by the payer. On analysis of various provisions of Chapter XVII one finds use of different expressions, however, the expression "sum chargeable under the provisions of the Act" is used only in s. 195. In…

DELOITTE HASKINS AND SELLS,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 11(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5094/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 244ASection 40

…ransmission Corporation of A. Ltd. vs. CIT (1999) 155 CTR (SC) 489: (1999) 239 ITR 587 (SC) and Vijay Ship Breaking Corpn. & Ors. vs. CIT (2008) 219 CTR (SC) 639: (2008) 14 DTR (SC) 74: (2009) 314 ITR 309 (SC) relied on; CIT vs. Cooper Engineering Ltd. (1968) 68 ITR 457 (Bom) impliedly approved. Sec. 195 falls in Chapter XVII which deals with collection and recovery. Chapter XVII-B deals with deduction at source by the payer. On analysis of various provisions of Chapter XVII one finds use of different expressions, however, the expression "sum chargeable under the provisions of the Act" is used only in s. 195. In…

Showing 1–20 of 30 · Page 1 of 2