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 371,507 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.

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

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1511/BANG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

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…

Expat Engineering India Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 503/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Rajgopal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 43B

…is not relevant to the present issue before us at all. 31. The ld AR relied on the following judgments to substantiate the claim that the interest u/s.201(1A) is compensatory in nature. The Hon’ble Supreme Court CIT vs Eli Lilly & Co. (India) (P.) Ltd [2009] 312 ITR 225 (SC) was rendered in the context of period up to which interest u/s.201(1A) is to be calculated and in that regard held that interest under section 201(1A) is a compensatory measure for withholding the tax which ought to have gone to the exchequer. The decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in CIT TDS vs Bharat Hotels Ltd [2015] 64 taxmann.com…

Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation-1, New Delhi vs. Air India Ltd

ITA/233/2022HC Delhi28 Jul 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

Section 12(4)Section 2Section 206ASection 7Section 90(2)

…ITA No.233/2022 Page 1 of 8 $~26 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 233/2022 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1, NEW DELHI ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Puneet Rai, Sr.Standing Counsel. versus AIR INDIA LTD. ..... Respondent Through: None % Date of Decision: 28th July, 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA J U D G M E N T MANMOHAN, J (Oral): 1. Present Income Tax Appeal has been filed challenging the Order dated 23rd April, 2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No. 2260/ DEL/2018, ITA No. 2261/DEL/2018 and ITA N…

M/S Nitesh Estates Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax (Intl Taxn) Circle-1(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 3135/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Narayana K.R., D.R
Section 195Section 201

…lant's case. 6.1 Ld. A.R. relied on the following judgements:- Decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of [a] HINDUSTAN COCO COLA BEVERAGES PVT. LTD., reported 293 ITR 226; Decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ELI LILLY it Co., [b] reported in 312 ITR 225; and [c] Decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai in the case of MERCHANT SHIPPING SERVICES PVT. LTD., reported in 8 ITR [Trib] 1; Decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, Bangalore in the case of [d] A.MOHIUDDIN in ITA No.971 /Bang/2014 6.2 The ld. D.R. submitted that assessment proceedings in the case of deductor and TDS proceedings in the hands of the deduc…

Eid Parry (India) Ltd., Belagavi vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS Range, Panaji

The appeals of the assessee are allowed in term of aforesaid observation

ITA 39/PAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji19 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. : 35 To 40/Pan/2019 करधििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012 To 2016-2017 M/S Eid Parry India Limited Khanpet, Trogal,Tal. : Ramdurg, Dist. : Belagavi, Karnataka Pan: Aaace 0702 C Tan:Blre 08509 E . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/S Income Tax Officer (Tds) Ward-1, Belagavi, Dist. : Belagavi, Karnataka . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Mr Philip George Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 24/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19/04/2022 आदेश / Order Per Bench; These Present Appeals Filed By The Appellant Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax- Appeals, Belagavi [For Short “Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which In Turn Ascended Out Of Orders Of The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax-Tds Range, Panaji [For Short “Ao”] Passed U/S 271C Of The Act, For Six Assessment Years [For Short “Ay”] 2011-2012 To 2016-2017. Itat-Panaji Page 1 Of 18

For Appellant: Mr Philip GeorgeFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 194CSection 250Section 271C

…to believe, based on observations or conversations to be not applicable or applicable as the case may be. In this regards it apt to quote the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “CIT Vs M/s Eli Lilly & Company (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors” reported at 312 ITR 225, with ITAT-Panaji Page 14 of 18 M/s EID Parry India Limited ITA No.: 35-40/PAN/2019 AY : 2011-2012 to 2016-2017 regards to reasonable cause for failure to deduct TDS, the Hon’ble Lordship on the scope of Section 271C r.w.s 273B have observed that; Section 271C inter alia states that if any person fails to deduct the whole or any part of the ta…

Eid Parry (India) Ltd., Belagavi vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS Range, Panaji

The appeals of the assessee are allowed in term of aforesaid observation

ITA 38/PAN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji19 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. : 35 To 40/Pan/2019 करधििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012 To 2016-2017 M/S Eid Parry India Limited Khanpet, Trogal,Tal. : Ramdurg, Dist. : Belagavi, Karnataka Pan: Aaace 0702 C Tan:Blre 08509 E . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/S Income Tax Officer (Tds) Ward-1, Belagavi, Dist. : Belagavi, Karnataka . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Mr Philip George Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 24/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19/04/2022 आदेश / Order Per Bench; These Present Appeals Filed By The Appellant Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax- Appeals, Belagavi [For Short “Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which In Turn Ascended Out Of Orders Of The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax-Tds Range, Panaji [For Short “Ao”] Passed U/S 271C Of The Act, For Six Assessment Years [For Short “Ay”] 2011-2012 To 2016-2017. Itat-Panaji Page 1 Of 18

For Appellant: Mr Philip GeorgeFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 194CSection 250Section 271C

…to believe, based on observations or conversations to be not applicable or applicable as the case may be. In this regards it apt to quote the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “CIT Vs M/s Eli Lilly & Company (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors” reported at 312 ITR 225, with ITAT-Panaji Page 14 of 18 M/s EID Parry India Limited ITA No.: 35-40/PAN/2019 AY : 2011-2012 to 2016-2017 regards to reasonable cause for failure to deduct TDS, the Hon’ble Lordship on the scope of Section 271C r.w.s 273B have observed that; Section 271C inter alia states that if any person fails to deduct the whole or any part of the ta…

Eid Parry (India) Ltd., Belagavi vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS Range, Panaji

The appeals of the assessee are allowed in term of aforesaid observation

ITA 37/PAN/2019[2013/14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji19 Apr 2022

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. : 35 To 40/Pan/2019 करधििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012 To 2016-2017 M/S Eid Parry India Limited Khanpet, Trogal,Tal. : Ramdurg, Dist. : Belagavi, Karnataka Pan: Aaace 0702 C Tan:Blre 08509 E . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/S Income Tax Officer (Tds) Ward-1, Belagavi, Dist. : Belagavi, Karnataka . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Mr Philip George Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 24/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19/04/2022 आदेश / Order Per Bench; These Present Appeals Filed By The Appellant Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax- Appeals, Belagavi [For Short “Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which In Turn Ascended Out Of Orders Of The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax-Tds Range, Panaji [For Short “Ao”] Passed U/S 271C Of The Act, For Six Assessment Years [For Short “Ay”] 2011-2012 To 2016-2017. Itat-Panaji Page 1 Of 18

For Appellant: Mr Philip GeorgeFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 194CSection 250Section 271C

…to believe, based on observations or conversations to be not applicable or applicable as the case may be. In this regards it apt to quote the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “CIT Vs M/s Eli Lilly & Company (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors” reported at 312 ITR 225, with ITAT-Panaji Page 14 of 18 M/s EID Parry India Limited ITA No.: 35-40/PAN/2019 AY : 2011-2012 to 2016-2017 regards to reasonable cause for failure to deduct TDS, the Hon’ble Lordship on the scope of Section 271C r.w.s 273B have observed that; Section 271C inter alia states that if any person fails to deduct the whole or any part of the ta…

Eid Parry (India) Ltd., Belagavi vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS Range, Panaji

The appeals of the assessee are allowed in term of aforesaid observation

ITA 36/PAN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji19 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. : 35 To 40/Pan/2019 करधििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012 To 2016-2017 M/S Eid Parry India Limited Khanpet, Trogal,Tal. : Ramdurg, Dist. : Belagavi, Karnataka Pan: Aaace 0702 C Tan:Blre 08509 E . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/S Income Tax Officer (Tds) Ward-1, Belagavi, Dist. : Belagavi, Karnataka . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Mr Philip George Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 24/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19/04/2022 आदेश / Order Per Bench; These Present Appeals Filed By The Appellant Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax- Appeals, Belagavi [For Short “Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which In Turn Ascended Out Of Orders Of The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax-Tds Range, Panaji [For Short “Ao”] Passed U/S 271C Of The Act, For Six Assessment Years [For Short “Ay”] 2011-2012 To 2016-2017. Itat-Panaji Page 1 Of 18

For Appellant: Mr Philip GeorgeFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 194CSection 250Section 271C

…to believe, based on observations or conversations to be not applicable or applicable as the case may be. In this regards it apt to quote the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “CIT Vs M/s Eli Lilly & Company (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors” reported at 312 ITR 225, with ITAT-Panaji Page 14 of 18 M/s EID Parry India Limited ITA No.: 35-40/PAN/2019 AY : 2011-2012 to 2016-2017 regards to reasonable cause for failure to deduct TDS, the Hon’ble Lordship on the scope of Section 271C r.w.s 273B have observed that; Section 271C inter alia states that if any person fails to deduct the whole or any part of the ta…

Eid Parry (India) Ltd., Belagavi vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS Range, Panaji

The appeals of the assessee are allowed in term of aforesaid observation

ITA 35/PAN/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji19 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. : 35 To 40/Pan/2019 करधििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012 To 2016-2017 M/S Eid Parry India Limited Khanpet, Trogal,Tal. : Ramdurg, Dist. : Belagavi, Karnataka Pan: Aaace 0702 C Tan:Blre 08509 E . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/S Income Tax Officer (Tds) Ward-1, Belagavi, Dist. : Belagavi, Karnataka . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Mr Philip George Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 24/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19/04/2022 आदेश / Order Per Bench; These Present Appeals Filed By The Appellant Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax- Appeals, Belagavi [For Short “Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which In Turn Ascended Out Of Orders Of The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax-Tds Range, Panaji [For Short “Ao”] Passed U/S 271C Of The Act, For Six Assessment Years [For Short “Ay”] 2011-2012 To 2016-2017. Itat-Panaji Page 1 Of 18

For Appellant: Mr Philip GeorgeFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 194CSection 250Section 271C

…to believe, based on observations or conversations to be not applicable or applicable as the case may be. In this regards it apt to quote the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “CIT Vs M/s Eli Lilly & Company (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors” reported at 312 ITR 225, with ITAT-Panaji Page 14 of 18 M/s EID Parry India Limited ITA No.: 35-40/PAN/2019 AY : 2011-2012 to 2016-2017 regards to reasonable cause for failure to deduct TDS, the Hon’ble Lordship on the scope of Section 271C r.w.s 273B have observed that; Section 271C inter alia states that if any person fails to deduct the whole or any part of the ta…

Radha Govind Buildestate P. Ltd, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 474/JPR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 468/Jp/2017 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2008-09 I.T.O. Cuke M/S Radha Govind Build Estate Vs. Ward 3(5), Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. E-4, Ganesham Tower, Amrapali Circle, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aadcr 0186 L Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Singh (CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 133ASection 147Section 148

…ought u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. He, therefore, deleted the addition made by the AO”. The Ld. AR also places reliance on the judgement of hon’ble Apex Court in case of M/s. Hindustan Cocoola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT 293 ITR 226 and Eli Lilly (India) Pvt. Ltd. 312 ITR 225. Thus in accordance with above settled position of law no disallowance could be made in the hands of assessee u/s 40(a)(ia) so the disallowance of Rs. 1,23,00,000/- made by Ld. A.O. by invoking provisions of section (40(a)(ia) and confirmed by CIT(A) deserves to be deleted. 57. On the other hand, the ld. DR has vehemently supported the orders of…

ITO, Jaipur vs. Radaha Govind Build Estate Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

ITA 469/JPR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 468/Jp/2017 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2008-09 I.T.O. Cuke M/S Radha Govind Build Estate Vs. Ward 3(5), Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. E-4, Ganesham Tower, Amrapali Circle, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aadcr 0186 L Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Singh (CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 133ASection 147Section 148

…ought u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. He, therefore, deleted the addition made by the AO”. The Ld. AR also places reliance on the judgement of hon’ble Apex Court in case of M/s. Hindustan Cocoola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT 293 ITR 226 and Eli Lilly (India) Pvt. Ltd. 312 ITR 225. Thus in accordance with above settled position of law no disallowance could be made in the hands of assessee u/s 40(a)(ia) so the disallowance of Rs. 1,23,00,000/- made by Ld. A.O. by invoking provisions of section (40(a)(ia) and confirmed by CIT(A) deserves to be deleted. 57. On the other hand, the ld. DR has vehemently supported the orders of…

ITO, Jaipur vs. Radaha Govind Build Estate Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

ITA 468/JPR/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 468/Jp/2017 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2008-09 I.T.O. Cuke M/S Radha Govind Build Estate Vs. Ward 3(5), Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. E-4, Ganesham Tower, Amrapali Circle, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aadcr 0186 L Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Singh (CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 133ASection 147Section 148

…ought u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. He, therefore, deleted the addition made by the AO”. The Ld. AR also places reliance on the judgement of hon’ble Apex Court in case of M/s. Hindustan Cocoola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT 293 ITR 226 and Eli Lilly (India) Pvt. Ltd. 312 ITR 225. Thus in accordance with above settled position of law no disallowance could be made in the hands of assessee u/s 40(a)(ia) so the disallowance of Rs. 1,23,00,000/- made by Ld. A.O. by invoking provisions of section (40(a)(ia) and confirmed by CIT(A) deserves to be deleted. 57. On the other hand, the ld. DR has vehemently supported the orders of…

Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are allowed in part

ITA/673/2016HC Karnataka28 Sept 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 12ASection 194JSection 260Section 260A

…charging Sections of that Act de hors the machinery Sections. 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 C.I.T. Vs. Eli Lilly & Co. (India) (P.) Ltd. [312 ITR 225] the provisions for deduction of TAS which is in Chapter XVII dealing with collection of taxes and the charging provisions of the I.T. 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.” 19. The words “such sum”…

ACIT, Circle- 10(2), New Delhi vs. Groz Engineering Tools Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

ITA 3895/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2021AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40a

…source, though it was mandated and required. The respondent was entitled to rely upon the circulars. In light of the judgments of the Supreme Court in CIT versus Eli Lilly Company (India) ACIT vs. M/s Groz Engineering Tools Pvt. Ltd. Private Limited, (2009) 312 ITR 225 (SC) and G.E India Technologies Centre Private Limited versus CIT, (2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC), once the income was not exigible or chargeable to tax, TDS was not required to be deducted. Money paid to the third parties, who did not have any office or permanent establishment in India, was exempt and not chargeable to tax. Thus on the said payments or…

ACIT, Circle- 10(2), New Delhi vs. Groz Engineering Tools Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

ITA 3894/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2021AY 2011-12
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40a

…source, though it was mandated and required. The respondent was entitled to rely upon the circulars. In light of the judgments of the Supreme Court in CIT versus Eli Lilly Company (India) ACIT vs. M/s Groz Engineering Tools Pvt. Ltd. Private Limited, (2009) 312 ITR 225 (SC) and G.E India Technologies Centre Private Limited versus CIT, (2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC), once the income was not exigible or chargeable to tax, TDS was not required to be deducted. Money paid to the third parties, who did not have any office or permanent establishment in India, was exempt and not chargeable to tax. Thus on the said payments or…

Airport Authority of India, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5163/DEL/2012[2011-12 (F.Y. 2010-11)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2021

Bench: Sh. K. N. Charydr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5162/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 5163/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Airports Authority Of India, Vs Income Tax Officer(Tds), Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan, Safdarjung Ward-1(1), Airport, New Delhi-110003 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaca6412D Assessee By : Sh. Ashish Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sohail Malik, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.02.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.05.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sohail Malik, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10(6)(ii)Section 115A

…o give weightage to every word used in that section. While interpreting the provisions of the Income Tax Act one cannot read the charging Sections of that Act de hors the machinery Sections. As held in the case of C.I.T. Vs. Eli Lilly & Co. (India) (P.) Ltd. [312 ITR 225] the provisions for deduction of TAS which is in Chapter XVII dealing with collection of taxes and the charging provisions of the I.T. Act form one single integral, inseparable Code and, therefore, the provisions relating to TDS ITA No. 5162 & 5163/Del/2012 43 Airport Authority of India applies only to those sums which are "chargeable to tax" u…

Airport Authority of India, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5162/DEL/2012[2010-11 (F.Y. 2009-10)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2021

Bench: Sh. K. N. Charydr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5162/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 5163/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Airports Authority Of India, Vs Income Tax Officer(Tds), Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan, Safdarjung Ward-1(1), Airport, New Delhi-110003 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaca6412D Assessee By : Sh. Ashish Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sohail Malik, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.02.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.05.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sohail Malik, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10(6)(ii)Section 115A

…o give weightage to every word used in that section. While interpreting the provisions of the Income Tax Act one cannot read the charging Sections of that Act de hors the machinery Sections. As held in the case of C.I.T. Vs. Eli Lilly & Co. (India) (P.) Ltd. [312 ITR 225] the provisions for deduction of TAS which is in Chapter XVII dealing with collection of taxes and the charging provisions of the I.T. Act form one single integral, inseparable Code and, therefore, the provisions relating to TDS ITA No. 5162 & 5163/Del/2012 43 Airport Authority of India applies only to those sums which are "chargeable to tax" u…

Air India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO (TDS)(International Taxation), New Delhi

ITA 2262/DEL/2017[2013-14 (F.Y. 2012-13)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2021

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Pal Puri, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Shiv Swaroop Singh, Senior DR
Section 154Section 200A

…h casts a duty on the assessee to deduct tax at source on payments to a non-resident cannot be looked upon as a charging provision. In-fact, in the context of section 195 of the Act also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Eli Lily & Co., (2009) 312 ITR 225 (SC) observed that the provisions of tax withholding i.e. section 195 of the Act would apply only to sums which are otherwise chargeable to tax under the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, (2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC) held that the provisions of DTAAs along with the sections 4, 5, 9, 90 & 91 of…

Air India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO (TDS)(International Taxation), New Delhi

ITA 2261/DEL/2017[2013-14 (F.Y. 2012-13)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2021

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Pal Puri, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Shiv Swaroop Singh, Senior DR
Section 154Section 200A

…h casts a duty on the assessee to deduct tax at source on payments to a non-resident cannot be looked upon as a charging provision. In-fact, in the context of section 195 of the Act also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Eli Lily & Co., (2009) 312 ITR 225 (SC) observed that the provisions of tax withholding i.e. section 195 of the Act would apply only to sums which are otherwise chargeable to tax under the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, (2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC) held that the provisions of DTAAs along with the sections 4, 5, 9, 90 & 91 of…

Air India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO (TDS)(International Taxation), New Delhi

ITA 2260/DEL/2017[2013-14 (F.Y. 2012-13)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2021

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Pal Puri, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Shiv Swaroop Singh, Senior DR
Section 154Section 200A

…h casts a duty on the assessee to deduct tax at source on payments to a non-resident cannot be looked upon as a charging provision. In-fact, in the context of section 195 of the Act also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Eli Lily & Co., (2009) 312 ITR 225 (SC) observed that the provisions of tax withholding i.e. section 195 of the Act would apply only to sums which are otherwise chargeable to tax under the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, (2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC) held that the provisions of DTAAs along with the sections 4, 5, 9, 90 & 91 of…