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.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does 18(3B) of the 1922 Act. In CIT v. Cooper Engineering Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 195, Section 250, Section 40(a)(i), Section 9.

18(3B) of the 1922 Act. In CIT v. Cooper Engineering Ltd. (68 ITR 457)

Q: How many judgments cite 18(3B) of the 1922 Act. In CIT v. Cooper Engineering Ltd.?

30 judgments on BharatTax cite 18(3B) of the 1922 Act. In CIT v. Cooper Engineering Ltd. (68 ITR 457), spanning 2015 to 2026.

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Xansa India Ltd., Noida

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2283/DEL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ankur Garg, CIT DR

Section 10ASection 40Section 40a

…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) pre- DCIT V Xansa India Limit…

I.T.O WD - 12(3), Kolkata. vs. M/S Jai Vikshu Niketan Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1133/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2009-10

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…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. 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…

ADIT, Dehradun vs. M/S. Halliburton Offshore Services Inc., Dehradun

ITA 1332/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiadit, Halliburton Offshore Services International Taxation, Inc. , Vs. 13-A,Subhash Road, C/O. Nangia & Company, Ca, Aayakar Bhawan, 75/7, Rajpur Road, Dehradun Dehradun Pan:Aaach5154M (Appellant) (Respondent) Halliburton Offshore Services Addl. Cit, Inc. , International Taxation, Vs. C/O. Nangia & Company, Ca, Subhash Road, Suite-4A, Plaza M-6, Jasola, Dehradun New Delhi Pan:Aaach5154M (Appellant) (Respondent) Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. , Adit, C/O. Nangia & Company, Ca, International Taxation, Vs. Suite-4A, Plaza M-6, Jasola, 13-A,Subhash Road, New Delhi Aayakar Bhawan, Pan:Aaach5154M Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. Vs Ddit (International Taxation)

Section 144CSection 44Section 44BSection 9

…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…

ADIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Parpool Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, solitary ground of appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3316/DEL/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jun 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri H S Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. R S Negi Sr DR

Section 154Section 195Section 201Section 209(1)(d)Section 234Section 234B

…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…

Rolls Royce Military Aero Engines Ltd vs. DDIT Int. Taxation Circle 2 (1)

In the result all the five appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 785/DEL/2008[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2016AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Bhutani, AdvFor Respondent: Sh R.S. Negi, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…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…

Rolls Royce Military Aero Engines Ltd vs. DDIT Intl. Taxation Circle-2 (1)

In the result all the five appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 784/DEL/2008[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2016AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Bhutani, AdvFor Respondent: Sh R.S. Negi, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…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…

DDIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Scorpion Courageous Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Cross Objection of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4619/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 44BSection 44DSection 9

…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…

DCIT 7(3), Mumbai vs. Zodiac Clothing Co.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3973/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.3973/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2009-10)

For Appellant: Ms.Anu K AggarwalFor Respondent: Mrs.Vasanti B Patel

Section 195Section 195(2)Section 40

…educt income tax thereon before making the payment, it was explained, were made in that context. In our view too, the said decision by the apex court, which we find to be in consonance with the decisions rendered earlier, as in CIT v. Cooper Engg. Ltd. [1968] 68 ITR 457 (Bom.); CIT v. Eli Lilly & Co. (India) (P.) Ltd. [2009] 312 ITR 225/178 Taxman 505 (SC); Vijay Ship Breaking Corpn. v. CIT[2009] 314 ITR 309/[2008] 175 Taxman 77 (SC) and, rather Transmission Corpn. of A.P. Ltd. (supra) as well, squarely covers the facts of the instant case. The Revenue, to enable us to disturb the like finding by the ld. CIT(A),…

Macoma Hardwares, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 25(3)), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6211/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2015AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Ishwar Prakash RathiFor Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 195(1)Section 200Section 201Section 221Section 40

…can take into consideration the effect of the DTAA in respect of payment of royalties and technical fees while deducting TDS. 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.[1968] 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) presupposes that the person responsib…

Director of Income Tax International Taxation vs. Ge Packaged Power Inc

ITA/352/2014HC Delhi12 Jan 2015

…5 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 (MANU/MH/0040/1967 : 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) pre-supposes that the person r…

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