G.E. Technology Center v. CIT

327 ITR 256Reported decision#24501 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2021.

Judgments citing G.E. Technology Center v. CIT

Chennai Petroleum Corpn Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2009-10 & 2010-11 in ITA Nos

ITA 495/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 689/Chny/2012 & 495/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 M/S. Chennai Petroleum The Joint Commissioner Of Corporation Ltd., V. Income Tax, 536, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Ltu, Chennai- 600 018. Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aaacm 4392C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. S. Bharath, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05.10.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.10.2021

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. S. Bharath, CIT
Section 195Section 195(1)Section 40

…ioner of Income tax (Appeals), LTU ought to have appreciated that Section 195 requires that tax is to be deducted at source from payment to a non-resident only if the amount is chargeable to tax 5.3 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in G.E.Technology Center vs. CIT (327 ITR 256) has held that that only that portion of the payment to the non resident chargeable to tax in India tax has to be deducted at source under the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5.4 Without prejudice, under the DTAA between UK and India only the profit accruing to M/s. Hardy Exploration and Production India Inc on production and sale of crude to the Appellant…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 853/CHNY/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Dec 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.Prabhu Mukunth Arun-
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40

…oner of Income tax (Appeals), LTU ought to have appreciated that Section 195 requires that tax is to be deducted at source from payment to a non-resident only if the amount is chargeable to tax. 3.3 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in G.E. Technology Center vs. CIT (327 ITR 256) has held that if there is no income chargeable to tax in India then there is no requirement for deducting tax at source under the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3.4 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), LTU ought to have appreciated that the disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) can be made only in respect of amounts outstanding and payable as on 31st March and…

Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Chennai vs. JCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 687/CHNY/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Dec 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.Prabhu Mukunth Arun-
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40

…oner of Income tax (Appeals), LTU ought to have appreciated that Section 195 requires that tax is to be deducted at source from payment to a non-resident only if the amount is chargeable to tax. 3.3 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in G.E. Technology Center vs. CIT (327 ITR 256) has held that if there is no income chargeable to tax in India then there is no requirement for deducting tax at source under the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3.4 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), LTU ought to have appreciated that the disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) can be made only in respect of amounts outstanding and payable as on 31st March and…

G.E. Technology Center v. CIT (327 ITR 256) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax