CIT v. NGC Networks (India) Pvt. Ltd.

432 ITR 326High Court2021#12801 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,487 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2022.

Judgments citing CIT v. NGC Networks (India) Pvt. Ltd.

M/S. Subex Limited, Bangalore vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Cirlce- 12(3), Bangalore

ITA 2638/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Smt.Vandana Sagar, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 260ASection 40Section 92C

…posed to foresee the subsequent retrospective amendment in the statute to be held liable to tax deduction at source. The said order of the ITAT was upheld by the Honourable Bombay High Court in CIT v. NGC Networks (India) Pvt. Ltd. [TS-41-HC-2018(BOM)]/(2021) 432 ITR 326 (Bom). The same is approved in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited Engineering [supra]. 17. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT v. KPMG TS-602-HC-2019(Bom), had held as under:- “7. In any view of the matter, the impugned order further holds that at the relevant time there was no obligation to deduct tax at…

M/S Subex Technologies Limited, Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

ITA 715/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Smt.Vandana Sagar, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 260ASection 40Section 92C

…posed to foresee the subsequent retrospective amendment in the statute to be held liable to tax deduction at source. The said order of the ITAT was upheld by the Honourable Bombay High Court in CIT v. NGC Networks (India) Pvt. Ltd. [TS-41-HC-2018(BOM)]/(2021) 432 ITR 326 (Bom). The same is approved in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited Engineering [supra]. 17. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT v. KPMG TS-602-HC-2019(Bom), had held as under:- “7. In any view of the matter, the impugned order further holds that at the relevant time there was no obligation to deduct tax at…

Espn Digital Media (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. DCIT International Taxation 1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1073/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meena

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. Advocate for Shri Aditya Vora, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, CIT
Section 195Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

…was not present at the time when the assessee made the payments. Hence, we are of the opinion that withholding obligation cannot be imposed retrospectively as has been held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. NGC Networks (India) Pvt. Ltd., 432 ITR 326. Consequently, the reliance of the AO and the CIT(A) on Explanations 5 and 6 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in Verizon are wholly misplaced. The unilateral amendment by India, irrespective of its retrospective or clarificatory nature cannot override the more 27 I.T.A. Nos.1070 to 1073/Chny/2018…

Espn Digital Media (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. DCIT International Taxation 1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1072/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meena

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. Advocate for Shri Aditya Vora, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, CIT
Section 195Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

…was not present at the time when the assessee made the payments. Hence, we are of the opinion that withholding obligation cannot be imposed retrospectively as has been held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. NGC Networks (India) Pvt. Ltd., 432 ITR 326. Consequently, the reliance of the AO and the CIT(A) on Explanations 5 and 6 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in Verizon are wholly misplaced. The unilateral amendment by India, irrespective of its retrospective or clarificatory nature cannot override the more 27 I.T.A. Nos.1070 to 1073/Chny/2018…

Espn Digital Media (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. DCIT International Taxation 1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1071/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meena

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. Advocate for Shri Aditya Vora, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, CIT
Section 195Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

…was not present at the time when the assessee made the payments. Hence, we are of the opinion that withholding obligation cannot be imposed retrospectively as has been held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. NGC Networks (India) Pvt. Ltd., 432 ITR 326. Consequently, the reliance of the AO and the CIT(A) on Explanations 5 and 6 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in Verizon are wholly misplaced. The unilateral amendment by India, irrespective of its retrospective or clarificatory nature cannot override the more 27 I.T.A. Nos.1070 to 1073/Chny/2018…

Espn Digital Media (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. DCIT International Taxation 1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1070/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meena

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. Advocate for Shri Aditya Vora, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, CIT
Section 195Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

…was not present at the time when the assessee made the payments. Hence, we are of the opinion that withholding obligation cannot be imposed retrospectively as has been held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. NGC Networks (India) Pvt. Ltd., 432 ITR 326. Consequently, the reliance of the AO and the CIT(A) on Explanations 5 and 6 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in Verizon are wholly misplaced. The unilateral amendment by India, irrespective of its retrospective or clarificatory nature cannot override the more 27 I.T.A. Nos.1070 to 1073/Chny/2018…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Kolkata vs. M/S. Eih Ltd

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is

ITAT/34/2020HC Calcutta16 Dec 2021

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 14ASection 194HSection 195Section 260ASection 40Section 9(1)

…ter noting the said decision which was a case arising under the provisions of the Evidence Act, 1872, the Hon’ble Supreme Court took note of the decision arising under the Income Tax Act, in the case of CIT vs. NGC Network (India) Pvt. Ltd. reported in [2021] 432 ITR 326 (Bombay) and CIT vs. Western Coalfields Ltd. passed in 6 ITA/93/2008, the High Court of Bombay held that the “person” mentioned in Section 195 of the Act cannot be expected to do the impossible, namely, to apply the expanded definition of “royalty” inserted by Explanation 4 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act for the assessment years in question, at…

Commissioner of Income Tax 14 Kolkata vs. Ramesh Chand Gupta

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is

ITA/34/2020HC Calcutta07 Dec 2021

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 14ASection 194HSection 195Section 260ASection 40Section 9(1)

…ter noting the said decision which was a case arising under the provisions of the Evidence Act, 1872, the Hon’ble Supreme Court took note of the decision arising under the Income Tax Act, in the case of CIT vs. NGC Network (India) Pvt. Ltd. reported in [2021] 432 ITR 326 (Bombay) and CIT vs. Western Coalfields Ltd. passed in 6 ITA/93/2008, the High Court of Bombay held that the “person” mentioned in Section 195 of the Act cannot be expected to do the impossible, namely, to apply the expanded definition of “royalty” inserted by Explanation 4 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act for the assessment years in question, at…