GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

327 ITR 456Supreme Court of India2010#84 most cited

What is GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Tax must be deducted at source from payments made to a non-resident under Section 195 only if such payment is chargeable to tax in India. The Assessing Officer bears the onus to establish that the payments made are indeed chargeable to tax under the Income Tax Act.

663

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT · Section 195 · Section 40(a)(i) · TDS non-resident · withholding tax India · payment chargeable to tax · liability to deduct tax · income tax non-resident · tax deduction at source

Sections most often in play

Section 195Section 40(a)(i)Section 40(a)(ia)Section 143(3)Section 115JBSection 201(1A)Section 14ASection 201(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 5(2)(b)section 9(1)(vii)(b)section 195(1)section 9(1)(i)section 195(2)section 5(2)section 40(a)(i)section 195fees for included servicessection 9(1)(vii)business connectionsection 9(1)

Judgments citing GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

ITO WARD 3(1)(4), RAJKOT-STATION- AMRELI, AMRELI, GUJARAT vs. AVADH AGRI EXPORTS, AMRELI, GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 816/RJT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Apr 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 172Section 195Section 195(1)Section 195(2)Section 250

…n the following judgements of the Hon`ble Supreme Court. (i)CIT v. Toshoku Ltd. (1980) 125 ITR 525 (SC): Commission earned by nonresident agents for services rendered outside India is not taxable in India. (ii)GE India Technology Centre (P) Ltd. v. CIT (2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC): TDS under section 195 arises only if the payment is chargeable to tax in India. About the consequence under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, we note that section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, disallows certain expenditure (like interest, commission, brokerage, professional fees, etc.) if TDS is not deducted but this applies only where TDS is deductibl…

M3M INDIA PVT.LTD.,HARYANA vs. JCIT(OSD) TDS CIRCLE, GURGAON

ITA 5660/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. S.S. Nager, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Amish S. Gupt, CIT,DR
Section 194CSection 194ISection 201(1)

…(SC)/[2007] 293 ITR 226 (SC), the assessee could not be held to be in default for non-deduction of tax at source. The Ld. AR also relied on the case of GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [2010] 7 taxmann.com 18 (SC)/[2010] 193 Taxman 234 (SC)/[2010] 327 ITR 456 (SC). Lastly, the Ld. AR distinguished the case of Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2024] 159 taxmann.com 444 (Delhi)/[2024] 462 ITR 326 (Delhi)” 12. Thereafter the Coordinate bench in the case of Deputy Gothwal Construction Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has held as follows: “However, the alternative submission of the Ld.AR that HUDA would be fil…

M3M INDIA PVT.LTD.,GURGAON vs. JCIT OSD TDS CIRCLE, GURGAON

ITA 5434/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. S.S. Nager, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Amish S. Gupt, CIT,DR
Section 194CSection 194ISection 201(1)

…(SC)/[2007] 293 ITR 226 (SC), the assessee could not be held to be in default for non-deduction of tax at source. The Ld. AR also relied on the case of GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [2010] 7 taxmann.com 18 (SC)/[2010] 193 Taxman 234 (SC)/[2010] 327 ITR 456 (SC). Lastly, the Ld. AR distinguished the case of Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2024] 159 taxmann.com 444 (Delhi)/[2024] 462 ITR 326 (Delhi)” 12. Thereafter the Coordinate bench in the case of Deputy Gothwal Construction Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has held as follows: “However, the alternative submission of the Ld.AR that HUDA would be fil…

M3M INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. JCIT OSD TDS CIRCLE, GURGAON

ITA 5433/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. S.S. Nager, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Amish S. Gupt, CIT,DR
Section 194CSection 194ISection 201(1)

…(SC)/[2007] 293 ITR 226 (SC), the assessee could not be held to be in default for non-deduction of tax at source. The Ld. AR also relied on the case of GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [2010] 7 taxmann.com 18 (SC)/[2010] 193 Taxman 234 (SC)/[2010] 327 ITR 456 (SC). Lastly, the Ld. AR distinguished the case of Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2024] 159 taxmann.com 444 (Delhi)/[2024] 462 ITR 326 (Delhi)” 12. Thereafter the Coordinate bench in the case of Deputy Gothwal Construction Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has held as follows: “However, the alternative submission of the Ld.AR that HUDA would be fil…

M3M INDIA PVT.LTD.,GURGAON vs. JCIT OSD TDS CIRCLE, GURGAON

ITA 5432/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. S.S. Nager, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Amish S. Gupt, CIT,DR
Section 194CSection 194ISection 201(1)

…(SC)/[2007] 293 ITR 226 (SC), the assessee could not be held to be in default for non-deduction of tax at source. The Ld. AR also relied on the case of GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [2010] 7 taxmann.com 18 (SC)/[2010] 193 Taxman 234 (SC)/[2010] 327 ITR 456 (SC). Lastly, the Ld. AR distinguished the case of Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2024] 159 taxmann.com 444 (Delhi)/[2024] 462 ITR 326 (Delhi)” 12. Thereafter the Coordinate bench in the case of Deputy Gothwal Construction Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has held as follows: “However, the alternative submission of the Ld.AR that HUDA would be fil…

M3M INDIA PVT.LTD.,GURGOAN vs. JCIT OSD TDS CIRCLE, GURGAON

ITA 5431/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. S.S. Nager, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Amish S. Gupt, CIT,DR
Section 194CSection 194ISection 201(1)

…(SC)/[2007] 293 ITR 226 (SC), the assessee could not be held to be in default for non-deduction of tax at source. The Ld. AR also relied on the case of GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [2010] 7 taxmann.com 18 (SC)/[2010] 193 Taxman 234 (SC)/[2010] 327 ITR 456 (SC). Lastly, the Ld. AR distinguished the case of Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2024] 159 taxmann.com 444 (Delhi)/[2024] 462 ITR 326 (Delhi)” 12. Thereafter the Coordinate bench in the case of Deputy Gothwal Construction Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has held as follows: “However, the alternative submission of the Ld.AR that HUDA would be fil…

SUPERHOUSE LIMITED,KANPUR vs. CIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-3, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 356/LKW/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos. 356 & 357/Lkw/2024 A.Ys. 2014-15 & A.Ys. 2015-16 Superhouse Limited, 150 Feet Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Road, Jajmau, Kanpur-208010 International Taxation-3, Delhi Pan: Aabcs9328K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. G.C. Srivastava, Adv & Sh. Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: These Two Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Cit, (International Taxation)-3, Delhi Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act For The A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16, Both Dated 29.03.2024, Wherein The Ld. Cit Has Set Aside The Earlier Orders Of The Assessing Officer For Making Of Fresh Orders In Accordance With The Directions Issued By Her. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Because, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit Has Erred In Assuming Jurisdiction Under Section 263 Of The Act & In Doing So, Has Sought To Substitute His Opinion With The Order Under Section 201(1)/201(1A) Passed After Undertaking Extensive & Detailed Consideration Of The Issue By The Ito (Tds). 2. Because, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit Has Erred In Assuming The Jurisdiction Under Section 263 Of The Act Without Appreciating That The Order Under Section 201(1)/201(1A) Passed By The Ito (Tds) Was Unerring & In Consonance With The Settled Principles Of Law. 3. Because, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Impugned Order While Premised On An Illegal Assumption Of Jurisdiction, Further Suffers From Non-Application Of Mind Since The Submissions Of The Assessee Have Not Been Considered [As Illustrated Infra]. A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. G.C. Srivastava, Adv & Sh. KalravFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR
Section 201(1)Section 263Section 90

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW ‘A’ BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 356 & 357/LKW/2024 A.Ys. 2014-15 & A.Ys. 2015-16 Superhouse Limited, 150 Feet vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax Road, Jajmau, Kanpur-208010 International Taxation-3, Delhi PAN: AABCS9328K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sh. G.C. Srivastava, Adv & Sh. Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv Revenue by: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR Date of hearing: 03.12.2025 Date of pronouncement: 25.02.2026 O R D E R PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.: These two appeals have been file…

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), AHMEDABAD vs. INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1842/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaasst. Commissioner Of M/S. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Vs. Income-Tax, Corporate House, S.G. Highway, Central Circle 2(3), Nr. Sola Bridge, Thaltej, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380 054 [Pan : Aaaci 5120 L] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant Represented By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit (Dr) Respondent Represented By: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, Ar Date Of Hearing 07.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 O R D E R Per Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble:-

Section 250

…cal Industries Ltd. [(2020) 422 ITR 449 (Guj)], where identical payments to foreign agents for export facilitation were held to be outside the scope of income deemed to accrue or arise in India. Similarly, in GE India Technology Centre (P) Ltd. v. CIT [(2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC)], the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the obligation under section 195 arises only if the payment is chargeable to tax in India. 105. We further note that the Revenue has not brought any material on record to establish that the agents had a business connection in India within the meaning of section 9(1)(i), or that services were rendered in In…

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. MS. JAGSON COLORCHEM LIMITED, PHASE -II GIDC ESTATE VATVA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1437/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Years:2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 30Section 40

…as sales is not susceptible to take in India and therefore Section 195 has no obligation and consequently Section 40(a)(i) does not get triggered. We thus decline to interfere. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology CEN (Pvt.) Ltd. (193 Taxmann 234)(SC) had held that where payment to non-resident is made, obligation to deduct tax at source does not arise at the moment a remittance is made to a non-resident; rather it arises only when such remittance is a sum chargeable under the Act, i.e. chargeable ACIT vs. Ms. Jagson colorchem limited, AY- 2018-19 6 under sections 4, 5 and 9 of the A…

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),AGRA, AGRA vs. EMCO EXPORTS, AGRA

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 415/AGR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 9

…utomatically arises. If we were to accept such contention, it would mean that on mere payment in India, income would be said to arise or accrue in India. These are the observations made in the judgment of Apex Court in the case of GE India vs. CIT reported in 327 ITR 456, relied on by the learned counsel for the assessee, for the proposition that provisions relating to deduction of tax applies only to those sums which are chargeable to tax under the Income-tax Act. If the contentions of the department, are to be taken as correct, that any person making payment to a non resident is necessarily required to deduct t…

GULF PIPING COMPANY WLL,ABU DHABI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN

ITA 83/DDN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun14 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Sh. Nabin Ballodia, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN BENCH, DEHRADUN Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member ITA No. 81/DDN/2024 : Asstt. Year: 2020-21 ITA No. 71/DDN/2024 : Asstt. Year: 2021-22 ITA No. 83/DDN/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2022-23 Gulf Piping Company WLL, Vs DCIT, Mussafah Industrial Area, International Taxation, P O Box 2739, Abu Dhabi, United Dehradun, Arab Emirates 2739 Uttarakhand-2488001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AADCG9969N Assessee by : Sh. Nabin Ballodia, CA & Sh. Rajesh Vaishnav, CA Revenue by : Sh. Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 14.01.2…

GULF PIPING COMPANY WLL,UNITED ARAB EMIRATES vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN

ITA 81/DDN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun14 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Sh. Nabin Ballodia, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN BENCH, DEHRADUN Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member ITA No. 81/DDN/2024 : Asstt. Year: 2020-21 ITA No. 71/DDN/2024 : Asstt. Year: 2021-22 ITA No. 83/DDN/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2022-23 Gulf Piping Company WLL, Vs DCIT, Mussafah Industrial Area, International Taxation, P O Box 2739, Abu Dhabi, United Dehradun, Arab Emirates 2739 Uttarakhand-2488001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AADCG9969N Assessee by : Sh. Nabin Ballodia, CA & Sh. Rajesh Vaishnav, CA Revenue by : Sh. Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 14.01.2…

GULF PIPING COMPANY WLL,UNITED ARAB EMIRATES vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN

ITA 71/DDN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun14 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Sh. Nabin Ballodia, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN BENCH, DEHRADUN Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member ITA No. 81/DDN/2024 : Asstt. Year: 2020-21 ITA No. 71/DDN/2024 : Asstt. Year: 2021-22 ITA No. 83/DDN/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2022-23 Gulf Piping Company WLL, Vs DCIT, Mussafah Industrial Area, International Taxation, P O Box 2739, Abu Dhabi, United Dehradun, Arab Emirates 2739 Uttarakhand-2488001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AADCG9969N Assessee by : Sh. Nabin Ballodia, CA & Sh. Rajesh Vaishnav, CA Revenue by : Sh. Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 14.01.2…

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, revenue and assessee are partly allowed for all the three assessment years

ITA 1518/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. Advocate and Shri Manish Kumar Kanth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT DR
Section 1Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…was passed not before that. Citing the example of audit fees the AR submitted that obligation to pay the fees to the statutory auditors arises only after they complete the statutory audit He relied upon the decisions of GE India Technology Centre Private Lid (327 ITR 456) and Industrial Development Bank of India(107 ITD45) in this regard. DR submitted that work was already carried out for the assessee, that appellant should have deducted tax source. He further submitted that once the amount was debited to profit and loss account provisions of section 40(a)(ia) were applicable 19.3. We find that the AO has not exa…

DEPUTY GOTHWAL CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-74(1), DELHI

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2862/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2862/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Deputy Gothwal Constructions P. Ltd. Dcit, L-73, Mahipalpur Extension, Vs. Circle 74(1), South Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aaccd9703C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 194CSection 196Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 271

…ITA No.2862/Del/2025 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRIMAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRISANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2862/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम DEPUTY GOTHWAL CONSTRUCTIONS P. LTD. DCIT, L-73, Mahipalpur Extension, Vs. Circle 74(1), South Delhi. New Delhi. PAN No.AACCD9703C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee by Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate Shri Ravi Pratap Mall, Advocate Shri Madhur Aggarwal, Advocate Revenue by Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date of hearing: 10.12.2025 17.12.20…

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 901/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

…r considered view, it is settled position of law that any payment to a non-resident, tax has to be deducted only upon the transaction or payment which is chargeable to tax under Income Tax Act, as held in the case of GE India Technology Centre (P) Ltd. vs CIT:327 ITR 456 (SC), Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt Ltd vs. CIT: 125 taxmann.com 42 (SC)].It is precondition that the AO had to establish that the payments made are chargeable to tax under the provisions of Income Tax. In the given case, the disallowances were made on the significant payments towards purchases to the SMC, Japan Which is the paren…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1024/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

…r considered view, it is settled position of law that any payment to a non-resident, tax has to be deducted only upon the transaction or payment which is chargeable to tax under Income Tax Act, as held in the case of GE India Technology Centre (P) Ltd. vs CIT:327 ITR 456 (SC), Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt Ltd vs. CIT: 125 taxmann.com 42 (SC)].It is precondition that the AO had to establish that the payments made are chargeable to tax under the provisions of Income Tax. In the given case, the disallowances were made on the significant payments towards purchases to the SMC, Japan Which is the paren…

RANGSONS SCHUSTER TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,MANDYA vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1)& TPS , MYSORE

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

ITA 1490/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Rangsons Schuster Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Plot No.9, Hebbal Ii Nd Phase Viadb Circle – 1(1) & Tps, Industrial Area, Survey No.36, Belagolahobli, Mysore. Srirangapatna, H.O. Shrirangapattana, Mandya– 571 438,Karnataka. Pan : Aafcr 4493 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 23.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 195Section 195BSection 40

…establishment or business connection in India. In this regard, the learned DR could not bring any cogent material that assessee has business connection in India. The learned Counsel also relied on the judgment in the case ofGE Technology Centre Vs. CIT [2010] 327 ITR 456 (SC) in which it has been held that the profits of the services rendered outside India cannot be taxed in India unless the non-resident is a permanent establish or has business connection as envisaged in section 9(1) of the Act. The learned Counsel further submitted that in the case of Turbo Energy Private Limited Vs. DCIT in ITA Nos.203 to 205/C…

PUNEET KHANNA,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 3(1), GURGAON

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3046/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Shri Puneet Khanna Vs. Income Tax Officer 8/51, Ramesh Nagar Ward-3(1) New Delhi Gurgaon Pan: Aajpk7067L Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. R. R. Gupta, Ca Revenue By Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025 Order

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘C’ NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER Shri Puneet Khanna Vs. Income Tax officer 8/51, Ramesh Nagar Ward-3(1) New Delhi Gurgaon PAN: AAJPK7067L Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. R. R. Gupta, CA Revenue by Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date of Pronouncement 26/09/2025 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: The captioned appeal is filed by the assessee for Assessment Year2020-21, challenging the respective order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/ADDL/JCIT…

ACIT , SPL. RANGE-9, NEW DELHI vs. TIMEX GROUP INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

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

ITA 7598/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 92Section 92BSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘D’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.7526/Del/2019 [Assessment Year: 2013-14] M/s Timex Group India Ltd. 106-107, Ambadeep Building, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 PAN-AAACT0773C Assessee Vs Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-9, New Delhi-110002 Revenue ITA No.7598/Del/2019 [Assessment Year: 2013-14] Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-9, New Delhi-110002 M/s Timex Group India Ltd. 106-107, Ambadeep Building, Vs Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110…

Showing 1–20 of 663 · Page 1 of 34

...