CIT v. Eli Lily & Co.

312 ITR 225Supreme Court of India2009#403 most cited

What is CIT v. Eli Lily & Co. authority for?

Section 195 of the Income Tax Act, which mandates tax withholding on payments to non-residents, applies only to sums that are otherwise chargeable to tax under the Act. Tax withholding provisions are not charging provisions.

221

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 371,239 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Eli Lily & Co. · section 195 · TDS · tax withholding · chargeable to tax · non-resident payments · not a charging provision · GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 269SSSection 271DSection 275(1)(c)Section 273BSection 194CSection 132

Issues it is cited on

section 271csection 192section 156assessee in defaultsection 273bsection 271dsection 201(1)section 201(1a)section 195section 19section 201section 194

Judgments citing CIT v. Eli Lily & Co.

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Corrtech International Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 1358/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 14ASection 26(1)(iii)

…ould not file TDS returns in time on account of reasons discussed hereinabove. Since the same is a reasonable cause, penalty cannot be levied. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of CIT vs. Eli Lilly And Co. (India) P. Ltd. - 312 ITR 225(SC). The Ld. AR further submitted that there is no loss to the revenue. The Assessee has deposited TDS along with interest. ITA No. 1785/Ahd/2012 & 08 others Corrtech International Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT(OSD) Asst.Years–2009-10, 2010-11, 2008-09, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Thus, it has compensated the Government for late payment of TDS which, in turn, has e…

Corrtech International Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, (OSD), Ahmedabad

ITA 821/AHD/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 14ASection 26(1)(iii)

…ould not file TDS returns in time on account of reasons discussed hereinabove. Since the same is a reasonable cause, penalty cannot be levied. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of CIT vs. Eli Lilly And Co. (India) P. Ltd. - 312 ITR 225(SC). The Ld. AR further submitted that there is no loss to the revenue. The Assessee has deposited TDS along with interest. ITA No. 1785/Ahd/2012 & 08 others Corrtech International Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT(OSD) Asst.Years–2009-10, 2010-11, 2008-09, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Thus, it has compensated the Government for late payment of TDS which, in turn, has e…

The DCIT(OSD) Range-1, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Corrtech International Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 1129/AHD/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 14ASection 26(1)(iii)

…ould not file TDS returns in time on account of reasons discussed hereinabove. Since the same is a reasonable cause, penalty cannot be levied. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of CIT vs. Eli Lilly And Co. (India) P. Ltd. - 312 ITR 225(SC). The Ld. AR further submitted that there is no loss to the revenue. The Assessee has deposited TDS along with interest. ITA No. 1785/Ahd/2012 & 08 others Corrtech International Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT(OSD) Asst.Years–2009-10, 2010-11, 2008-09, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Thus, it has compensated the Government for late payment of TDS which, in turn, has e…

Corrtech International Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT., (OSD) Range-1, Ahmedabad

ITA 2652/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 14ASection 26(1)(iii)

…ould not file TDS returns in time on account of reasons discussed hereinabove. Since the same is a reasonable cause, penalty cannot be levied. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of CIT vs. Eli Lilly And Co. (India) P. Ltd. - 312 ITR 225(SC). The Ld. AR further submitted that there is no loss to the revenue. The Assessee has deposited TDS along with interest. ITA No. 1785/Ahd/2012 & 08 others Corrtech International Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT(OSD) Asst.Years–2009-10, 2010-11, 2008-09, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Thus, it has compensated the Government for late payment of TDS which, in turn, has e…

The DCIT(OSD) Range-1, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Corrtech International Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 2578/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 14ASection 26(1)(iii)

…ould not file TDS returns in time on account of reasons discussed hereinabove. Since the same is a reasonable cause, penalty cannot be levied. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of CIT vs. Eli Lilly And Co. (India) P. Ltd. - 312 ITR 225(SC). The Ld. AR further submitted that there is no loss to the revenue. The Assessee has deposited TDS along with interest. ITA No. 1785/Ahd/2012 & 08 others Corrtech International Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT(OSD) Asst.Years–2009-10, 2010-11, 2008-09, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Thus, it has compensated the Government for late payment of TDS which, in turn, has e…

The DCIT(OSD)Range-1, Ahmedabad vs. Corrtech International Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 1871/AHD/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 14ASection 26(1)(iii)

…ould not file TDS returns in time on account of reasons discussed hereinabove. Since the same is a reasonable cause, penalty cannot be levied. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of CIT vs. Eli Lilly And Co. (India) P. Ltd. - 312 ITR 225(SC). The Ld. AR further submitted that there is no loss to the revenue. The Assessee has deposited TDS along with interest. ITA No. 1785/Ahd/2012 & 08 others Corrtech International Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT(OSD) Asst.Years–2009-10, 2010-11, 2008-09, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Thus, it has compensated the Government for late payment of TDS which, in turn, has e…

Corrtech International Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT., (OSD)Range-1, Ahmedabad

ITA 1785/AHD/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 14ASection 26(1)(iii)

…ould not file TDS returns in time on account of reasons discussed hereinabove. Since the same is a reasonable cause, penalty cannot be levied. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of CIT vs. Eli Lilly And Co. (India) P. Ltd. - 312 ITR 225(SC). The Ld. AR further submitted that there is no loss to the revenue. The Assessee has deposited TDS along with interest. ITA No. 1785/Ahd/2012 & 08 others Corrtech International Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT(OSD) Asst.Years–2009-10, 2010-11, 2008-09, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Thus, it has compensated the Government for late payment of TDS which, in turn, has e…

Income Tax Officer, TDS-1, Mumabi vs. M/S Blue Star Realtors Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 715/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Tds-1, M/S Blue Star Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Gr. Floor, Qureshi Mansion, Ground Floor, Dewan Tower, Gokhale Road, Teen Hat Naka, Vs. Navghar, Vasai Road (W), Thane-400 602. Thane-401202. Pan No. Aaacb 8570 F Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Mr. Abdul Memon, Ar Date Of Hearing : 08/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/10/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Abdul Memon, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT-DR
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

…Blue Star Realtors Pvt. Ltd. M/s Blue Star (6) RBL Bank Ltd.(2016),65 taxmann.com 219 (Panaji Trib) (6) RBL Bank Ltd.(2016),65 taxmann.com 219 (Panaji Trib) (6) RBL Bank Ltd.(2016),65 taxmann.com 219 (Panaji Trib) (g)Eli Lilly & Co. (India)P. Ltd & Ors. (2009)312 ITR 225(SC) (g)Eli Lilly & Co. (India)P. Ltd & Ors. (2009)312 ITR 225(SC) (g)Eli Lilly & Co. (India)P. Ltd & Ors. (2009)312 ITR 225(SC) 4. On the facts and in On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the circumstances of the case and in law, same the Ld CIT(A) same the Ld CIT(A)-53, Mumbai has erred in relying upon CBDT 53, Mumbai ha…

Income Tax Officer, TDS-1 Thane, Thane vs. M/S Blue Star Realtors Pvt Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 714/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Tds-1, M/S Blue Star Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Gr. Floor, Qureshi Mansion, Ground Floor, Dewan Tower, Gokhale Road, Teen Hat Naka, Vs. Navghar, Vasai Road (W), Thane-400 602. Thane-401202. Pan No. Aaacb 8570 F Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Mr. Abdul Memon, Ar Date Of Hearing : 08/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/10/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Abdul Memon, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT-DR
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

…Blue Star Realtors Pvt. Ltd. M/s Blue Star (6) RBL Bank Ltd.(2016),65 taxmann.com 219 (Panaji Trib) (6) RBL Bank Ltd.(2016),65 taxmann.com 219 (Panaji Trib) (6) RBL Bank Ltd.(2016),65 taxmann.com 219 (Panaji Trib) (g)Eli Lilly & Co. (India)P. Ltd & Ors. (2009)312 ITR 225(SC) (g)Eli Lilly & Co. (India)P. Ltd & Ors. (2009)312 ITR 225(SC) (g)Eli Lilly & Co. (India)P. Ltd & Ors. (2009)312 ITR 225(SC) 4. On the facts and in On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the circumstances of the case and in law, same the Ld CIT(A) same the Ld CIT(A)-53, Mumbai has erred in relying upon CBDT 53, Mumbai ha…

Hewlett Packard (India) Software Operation Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 413/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.413/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 192Section 195Section 37Section 40Section 92C

…t of “any amount” referred to in the specified provisions…….. …...The Act is to be read as an integrated Code. Section 195 appears in Chapter XVII which deals with collection and recovery. As held in the case of CIT v. Eli Lilly & Co. (India) (P.) Ltd. [2009] 312 ITR 225 (SC) the provisions for deduction of TAS which is in Chapter XVII dealing with collection of taxes and the charging provisions of the Income-tax Act form one single integral, inseparable Code and, therefore, the provisions relating to TDS applies only to those sums which are "chargeable to tax" under the Income-tax Act." 2.31 The above view has…

Hewlett Packard (India) Software Operation Private Limited, 2016-17 vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 213/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.213/Bang/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Arya, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 92C

…t of “any amount” referred to in the specified provisions…….. …...The Act is to be read as an integrated Code. Section 195 appears in Chapter XVII which deals with collection and recovery. As held in the case of CIT v. Eli Lilly & Co. (India) (P.) Ltd. [2009] 312 ITR 225 (SC) the provisions for deduction of TAS which is in Chapter XVII dealing with collection of taxes and the charging provisions of the Income-tax Act form one single integral, inseparable Code and, therefore, the provisions relating to TDS applies only to those sums which are "chargeable to tax" under the Income-tax Act." 34.31 The above view has…

Mahesh Kumar Agrawal, Jaipur vs. ACIT Circle 7 Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 194/JPR/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehara (Addl.CIT) a
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 194/JP/2021 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2012-13 ACIT, cuke Mahesh Kumar Agrawal 23/82 Jamuna Kunj, Swaran Path, Vs. Circle-7, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAUPA 8214 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2008-09,

ITA 1673/CHNY/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1673, 1688, 1689, 1691/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. United India Insurance Co. Tax, V. Ltd., Large Tax Payer Unit, 24, Whites Road, Chennai – Chennai. 600 014. [Pan: Aaacu-5552-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 1693/Chny/2011, 36/Chny/2014 & 696/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. United India Insurance Co. Tax, V. Ltd., Large Tax Payer Unit, 24, Whites Road, Chennai – Chennai. 600 014. [Pan: Aaacu-5552-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. S. Sundararaman, Ca Department Represented By : Shri. M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel & Ms. V. Pushpa, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.08.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R

Section 195Section 195(1)Section 40Section 5(2)(b)

…s of the NRRs does not arise. 65. The applicability of TDS provisions is only in respect of income chargeable to tax has been explained in the judgments of the Supreme Court of India in the cases of Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Eli Lilly & Co. (India) P Ltd (312 ITR 225); GE India Technology Centre Private Ltd Vs CIT (2010-TII-07-SC-INTL) and Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation v. CIT (314 ITR 309). In the aforesaid cases, the Supreme Court has held that taxes would need to be withheld only if the sum payable is chargeable to tax under the provisions of the Act. As in this case it is the contention of the assessee t…

ACIT, Chennai vs. United India Insurance Company, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2008-09,

ITA 696/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1673, 1688, 1689, 1691/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. United India Insurance Co. Tax, V. Ltd., Large Tax Payer Unit, 24, Whites Road, Chennai – Chennai. 600 014. [Pan: Aaacu-5552-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 1693/Chny/2011, 36/Chny/2014 & 696/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. United India Insurance Co. Tax, V. Ltd., Large Tax Payer Unit, 24, Whites Road, Chennai – Chennai. 600 014. [Pan: Aaacu-5552-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. S. Sundararaman, Ca Department Represented By : Shri. M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel & Ms. V. Pushpa, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.08.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R

Section 195Section 195(1)Section 40Section 5(2)(b)

…s of the NRRs does not arise. 65. The applicability of TDS provisions is only in respect of income chargeable to tax has been explained in the judgments of the Supreme Court of India in the cases of Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Eli Lilly & Co. (India) P Ltd (312 ITR 225); GE India Technology Centre Private Ltd Vs CIT (2010-TII-07-SC-INTL) and Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation v. CIT (314 ITR 309). In the aforesaid cases, the Supreme Court has held that taxes would need to be withheld only if the sum payable is chargeable to tax under the provisions of the Act. As in this case it is the contention of the assessee t…

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2008-09,

ITA 36/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1673, 1688, 1689, 1691/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. United India Insurance Co. Tax, V. Ltd., Large Tax Payer Unit, 24, Whites Road, Chennai – Chennai. 600 014. [Pan: Aaacu-5552-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 1693/Chny/2011, 36/Chny/2014 & 696/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. United India Insurance Co. Tax, V. Ltd., Large Tax Payer Unit, 24, Whites Road, Chennai – Chennai. 600 014. [Pan: Aaacu-5552-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. S. Sundararaman, Ca Department Represented By : Shri. M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel & Ms. V. Pushpa, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.08.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R

Section 195Section 195(1)Section 40Section 5(2)(b)

…s of the NRRs does not arise. 65. The applicability of TDS provisions is only in respect of income chargeable to tax has been explained in the judgments of the Supreme Court of India in the cases of Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Eli Lilly & Co. (India) P Ltd (312 ITR 225); GE India Technology Centre Private Ltd Vs CIT (2010-TII-07-SC-INTL) and Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation v. CIT (314 ITR 309). In the aforesaid cases, the Supreme Court has held that taxes would need to be withheld only if the sum payable is chargeable to tax under the provisions of the Act. As in this case it is the contention of the assessee t…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2008-09,

ITA 1693/CHNY/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1673, 1688, 1689, 1691/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. United India Insurance Co. Tax, V. Ltd., Large Tax Payer Unit, 24, Whites Road, Chennai – Chennai. 600 014. [Pan: Aaacu-5552-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 1693/Chny/2011, 36/Chny/2014 & 696/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. United India Insurance Co. Tax, V. Ltd., Large Tax Payer Unit, 24, Whites Road, Chennai – Chennai. 600 014. [Pan: Aaacu-5552-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. S. Sundararaman, Ca Department Represented By : Shri. M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel & Ms. V. Pushpa, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.08.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R

Section 195Section 195(1)Section 40Section 5(2)(b)

…s of the NRRs does not arise. 65. The applicability of TDS provisions is only in respect of income chargeable to tax has been explained in the judgments of the Supreme Court of India in the cases of Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Eli Lilly & Co. (India) P Ltd (312 ITR 225); GE India Technology Centre Private Ltd Vs CIT (2010-TII-07-SC-INTL) and Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation v. CIT (314 ITR 309). In the aforesaid cases, the Supreme Court has held that taxes would need to be withheld only if the sum payable is chargeable to tax under the provisions of the Act. As in this case it is the contention of the assessee t…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2008-09,

ITA 1691/CHNY/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1673, 1688, 1689, 1691/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. United India Insurance Co. Tax, V. Ltd., Large Tax Payer Unit, 24, Whites Road, Chennai – Chennai. 600 014. [Pan: Aaacu-5552-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 1693/Chny/2011, 36/Chny/2014 & 696/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. United India Insurance Co. Tax, V. Ltd., Large Tax Payer Unit, 24, Whites Road, Chennai – Chennai. 600 014. [Pan: Aaacu-5552-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. S. Sundararaman, Ca Department Represented By : Shri. M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel & Ms. V. Pushpa, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.08.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R

Section 195Section 195(1)Section 40Section 5(2)(b)

…s of the NRRs does not arise. 65. The applicability of TDS provisions is only in respect of income chargeable to tax has been explained in the judgments of the Supreme Court of India in the cases of Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Eli Lilly & Co. (India) P Ltd (312 ITR 225); GE India Technology Centre Private Ltd Vs CIT (2010-TII-07-SC-INTL) and Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation v. CIT (314 ITR 309). In the aforesaid cases, the Supreme Court has held that taxes would need to be withheld only if the sum payable is chargeable to tax under the provisions of the Act. As in this case it is the contention of the assessee t…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2008-09,

ITA 1689/CHNY/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1673, 1688, 1689, 1691/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. United India Insurance Co. Tax, V. Ltd., Large Tax Payer Unit, 24, Whites Road, Chennai – Chennai. 600 014. [Pan: Aaacu-5552-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 1693/Chny/2011, 36/Chny/2014 & 696/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. United India Insurance Co. Tax, V. Ltd., Large Tax Payer Unit, 24, Whites Road, Chennai – Chennai. 600 014. [Pan: Aaacu-5552-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. S. Sundararaman, Ca Department Represented By : Shri. M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel & Ms. V. Pushpa, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.08.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R

Section 195Section 195(1)Section 40Section 5(2)(b)

…s of the NRRs does not arise. 65. The applicability of TDS provisions is only in respect of income chargeable to tax has been explained in the judgments of the Supreme Court of India in the cases of Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Eli Lilly & Co. (India) P Ltd (312 ITR 225); GE India Technology Centre Private Ltd Vs CIT (2010-TII-07-SC-INTL) and Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation v. CIT (314 ITR 309). In the aforesaid cases, the Supreme Court has held that taxes would need to be withheld only if the sum payable is chargeable to tax under the provisions of the Act. As in this case it is the contention of the assessee t…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2008-09,

ITA 1688/CHNY/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1673, 1688, 1689, 1691/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. United India Insurance Co. Tax, V. Ltd., Large Tax Payer Unit, 24, Whites Road, Chennai – Chennai. 600 014. [Pan: Aaacu-5552-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 1693/Chny/2011, 36/Chny/2014 & 696/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. United India Insurance Co. Tax, V. Ltd., Large Tax Payer Unit, 24, Whites Road, Chennai – Chennai. 600 014. [Pan: Aaacu-5552-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. S. Sundararaman, Ca Department Represented By : Shri. M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel & Ms. V. Pushpa, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.08.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R

Section 195Section 195(1)Section 40Section 5(2)(b)

…s of the NRRs does not arise. 65. The applicability of TDS provisions is only in respect of income chargeable to tax has been explained in the judgments of the Supreme Court of India in the cases of Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Eli Lilly & Co. (India) P Ltd (312 ITR 225); GE India Technology Centre Private Ltd Vs CIT (2010-TII-07-SC-INTL) and Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation v. CIT (314 ITR 309). In the aforesaid cases, the Supreme Court has held that taxes would need to be withheld only if the sum payable is chargeable to tax under the provisions of the Act. As in this case it is the contention of the assessee t…

M/S Google India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Dy. D.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1512/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K V Aravind, Standing Counsel

…ibed under sub-section (3) of section 201 with respect to orders u/s. 201(1), however, there is no time limit for passing orders u/s. 201(1A) of the Act. The ld DR submitted that the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Eli Lily & Co. (India) (P.) Ltd., [2009] 312 ITR 225 (SC) has held that the interest u/s. 201(1A) is compensatory in nature and therefore submitted that for ITA Nos.1511 & 1512/Bang/2013 Page 7 of 17 a demand which is compensatory in nature there cannot be any limitation of time on a reasonable basis. Further the ld DR submitted that issue of interest payable u/s.201(1A) being compensatory in the…