GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

327 ITR 456Supreme Court of India2010#85 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 372,250 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)
Read the full judgment

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

Span Air Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO TDS Ward 51, Ghaziabad

The Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4434/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. M. R. Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 206ASection 90(2)

…TR 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 the Act are relevant while applying the provisions of tax deduction at source. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid schematic interpretation of the Act, section 206AA of the Act cannot be understood to override the charging sections 4 and 5 of the Act. Thus, where s…

Shyamol Banerji, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 26/BANG/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Feb 2023AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Navaneeth N. Kini, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for department
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

…ITA No.25&26/Bang/2023 Shyamol Banerji, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.25&26/Bang/2023 Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 Shyamol Banerji Flat No.3131, D-2 Block Windmills of Your Mind Road 5B Deputy Commissioner of EPIP Zone Vs. Income-tax Whitefield CPC Bangalore Bangalore PAN NO : ABUPB5760H APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Navaneeth N. Kini, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for department. Date of Hearing : 13.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 13.02.2023 O R D E R These two…

Shyamol Banerji, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 25/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Feb 2023AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Navaneeth N. Kini, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for department
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

…ITA No.25&26/Bang/2023 Shyamol Banerji, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.25&26/Bang/2023 Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 Shyamol Banerji Flat No.3131, D-2 Block Windmills of Your Mind Road 5B Deputy Commissioner of EPIP Zone Vs. Income-tax Whitefield CPC Bangalore Bangalore PAN NO : ABUPB5760H APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Navaneeth N. Kini, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for department. Date of Hearing : 13.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 13.02.2023 O R D E R These two…

Income Tax Officer (It) 3 (2) (2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Macrotech Developers Ltd (As Sucessor of Lodha Developers Ltd Which Was Bellissimo Crown Buildmart Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the cross objection filed by the assesse are also dismissed

ITA 783/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

…authorities; on the basis of material on record, have rightly held that "business connection" is not established. 15. The scope and ambit of Section 195 of the Act has been explained by the Supreme Court in GE India Techonology Centre (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 327 ITR 456. In the said case the expression "any other sum chargeable under the provisions of the Act" in Section 195 of the Act was elucidated and explained. It was held that if payment is made in respect of the amount which is not chargeable to tax under the provisions of Act, tax at source (TDS, for short) is not liable to be deducted. Decision of Suprem…

Income Tax Officer (It) 3(2) (2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Macrotech Developers Ltd (As Sucessor of Lodha Developers Ltd Which Was Bellissimo Crown Buildmart Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the cross objection filed by the assesse are also dismissed

ITA 782/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

…authorities; on the basis of material on record, have rightly held that "business connection" is not established. 15. The scope and ambit of Section 195 of the Act has been explained by the Supreme Court in GE India Techonology Centre (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 327 ITR 456. In the said case the expression "any other sum chargeable under the provisions of the Act" in Section 195 of the Act was elucidated and explained. It was held that if payment is made in respect of the amount which is not chargeable to tax under the provisions of Act, tax at source (TDS, for short) is not liable to be deducted. Decision of Suprem…

Income Tax Officer (It) 3(2) (2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Macrotech Developers Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the cross objection filed by the assesse are also dismissed

ITA 500/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

…authorities; on the basis of material on record, have rightly held that "business connection" is not established. 15. The scope and ambit of Section 195 of the Act has been explained by the Supreme Court in GE India Techonology Centre (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 327 ITR 456. In the said case the expression "any other sum chargeable under the provisions of the Act" in Section 195 of the Act was elucidated and explained. It was held that if payment is made in respect of the amount which is not chargeable to tax under the provisions of Act, tax at source (TDS, for short) is not liable to be deducted. Decision of Suprem…

Income Tax Officer (It) 3(2) (2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Macrotech Develope\Rs Ltd (As Sucessor of Lodha Developers Ltd Which Was Sucessor of Bellissimo Crown Builders P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the cross objection filed by the assesse are also dismissed

ITA 498/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

…authorities; on the basis of material on record, have rightly held that "business connection" is not established. 15. The scope and ambit of Section 195 of the Act has been explained by the Supreme Court in GE India Techonology Centre (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 327 ITR 456. In the said case the expression "any other sum chargeable under the provisions of the Act" in Section 195 of the Act was elucidated and explained. It was held that if payment is made in respect of the amount which is not chargeable to tax under the provisions of Act, tax at source (TDS, for short) is not liable to be deducted. Decision of Suprem…

Income Tax Officer (It), Mumbai vs. M/S. Macrotech Developers Ltd (As Sucessor of Lodha Developers Ltd Which Was Bellissimo Crown Buildmart Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the cross objection filed by the assesse are also dismissed

ITA 497/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

…authorities; on the basis of material on record, have rightly held that "business connection" is not established. 15. The scope and ambit of Section 195 of the Act has been explained by the Supreme Court in GE India Techonology Centre (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 327 ITR 456. In the said case the expression "any other sum chargeable under the provisions of the Act" in Section 195 of the Act was elucidated and explained. It was held that if payment is made in respect of the amount which is not chargeable to tax under the provisions of Act, tax at source (TDS, for short) is not liable to be deducted. Decision of Suprem…

DCIT, Circle-20(2), New Delhi vs. Ratp Dev Transdev India Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

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

ITA 7764/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(2)Section 28Section 40Section 68

…RATP Dev Transdev, ND 4.8. In terms of the ratio contained in the decisions stated above the contributions to social security are not chargeable to tax under the head salaries. The Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of GE India Technology Centre Private Ltd. [327 ITR 456] held that seption. 195(1) uses the expression ‘‘sum chargeable under the provisions of the Act”. This means that a person paying any sum to a non-resident is not liable to deduct tax if such sum is not chargeable to tax. TDS obligation u/s 195(1) arises only if the payment is chargeable to tax in the hands of non-resident recipient. 4.9. Theref…

The ACIT, Kochi vs. M/S.Cochin Shipyard Ltd, Kochi

In the result, all the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 659/COCH/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. ARFor Respondent: S/Shri Rajasekharan & K. Gopi, CAs
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40

…alibre professionals and has ITA Nos.655 to 659/Coch/2019 Page 5 of 10 initiated set up of several joint ventures between reputable local and international shipping companies. The AO relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of G.E. Technology, 327 ITR 456 by holding that the payment made by the assessee to broker are towards services in the nature of fees for technical services. 9. The CIT(A) on further appeal held that the impugned payments are not liable for tax deduction at source as the same is paid for services rendered outside India to non-resident broker. Accordingly the CIT(A) deleted the…

The ACIT, Kochi vs. M/S.Cochin Shipyard Ltd, Kochi

In the result, all the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 658/COCH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. ARFor Respondent: S/Shri Rajasekharan & K. Gopi, CAs
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40

…alibre professionals and has ITA Nos.655 to 659/Coch/2019 Page 5 of 10 initiated set up of several joint ventures between reputable local and international shipping companies. The AO relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of G.E. Technology, 327 ITR 456 by holding that the payment made by the assessee to broker are towards services in the nature of fees for technical services. 9. The CIT(A) on further appeal held that the impugned payments are not liable for tax deduction at source as the same is paid for services rendered outside India to non-resident broker. Accordingly the CIT(A) deleted the…

The ACIT, Kochi vs. M/S.Cochin Shipyard Ltd, Kochi

In the result, all the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 657/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. ARFor Respondent: S/Shri Rajasekharan & K. Gopi, CAs
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40

…alibre professionals and has ITA Nos.655 to 659/Coch/2019 Page 5 of 10 initiated set up of several joint ventures between reputable local and international shipping companies. The AO relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of G.E. Technology, 327 ITR 456 by holding that the payment made by the assessee to broker are towards services in the nature of fees for technical services. 9. The CIT(A) on further appeal held that the impugned payments are not liable for tax deduction at source as the same is paid for services rendered outside India to non-resident broker. Accordingly the CIT(A) deleted the…

The ACIT, Kochi vs. M/S.Cochin Shipyard Ltd, Kochi

In the result, all the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 656/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. ARFor Respondent: S/Shri Rajasekharan & K. Gopi, CAs
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40

…alibre professionals and has ITA Nos.655 to 659/Coch/2019 Page 5 of 10 initiated set up of several joint ventures between reputable local and international shipping companies. The AO relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of G.E. Technology, 327 ITR 456 by holding that the payment made by the assessee to broker are towards services in the nature of fees for technical services. 9. The CIT(A) on further appeal held that the impugned payments are not liable for tax deduction at source as the same is paid for services rendered outside India to non-resident broker. Accordingly the CIT(A) deleted the…

The ACIT, Kochi vs. M/S.Cochin Shipyard Ltd, Kochi

In the result, all the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 655/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. ARFor Respondent: S/Shri Rajasekharan & K. Gopi, CAs
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40

…alibre professionals and has ITA Nos.655 to 659/Coch/2019 Page 5 of 10 initiated set up of several joint ventures between reputable local and international shipping companies. The AO relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of G.E. Technology, 327 ITR 456 by holding that the payment made by the assessee to broker are towards services in the nature of fees for technical services. 9. The CIT(A) on further appeal held that the impugned payments are not liable for tax deduction at source as the same is paid for services rendered outside India to non-resident broker. Accordingly the CIT(A) deleted the…

M/S Harman Connected Services Corporation India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 1982/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1980 To 1982/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sreenivas T. Bidari, D.R
Section 143(3)

…ITA Nos.1980 to 1982/Bang/2018 M/s. Harman Connected Services Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1980 to 1982/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 M/s. Harman Connected Services Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. (formerly known as Symphony Teleca Addl. CIT Corporation India Private Ltd.) Range-12 No.3 & 3A, EOIZ Industrial Area (currently with ACIT Survey No.85 & 86, Sadarmangala Vs. Circle-3(1)(2)) Village Bangalore Krishnarajapuram Hobli B…

M/S Harman Connected Services Corporation India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 1981/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1980 To 1982/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sreenivas T. Bidari, D.R
Section 143(3)

…ITA Nos.1980 to 1982/Bang/2018 M/s. Harman Connected Services Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1980 to 1982/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 M/s. Harman Connected Services Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. (formerly known as Symphony Teleca Addl. CIT Corporation India Private Ltd.) Range-12 No.3 & 3A, EOIZ Industrial Area (currently with ACIT Survey No.85 & 86, Sadarmangala Vs. Circle-3(1)(2)) Village Bangalore Krishnarajapuram Hobli B…

M/S Harman Connected Services Corporation India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range-12, Bangalore

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

ITA 1980/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1980 To 1982/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sreenivas T. Bidari, D.R
Section 143(3)

…ITA Nos.1980 to 1982/Bang/2018 M/s. Harman Connected Services Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1980 to 1982/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 M/s. Harman Connected Services Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. (formerly known as Symphony Teleca Addl. CIT Corporation India Private Ltd.) Range-12 No.3 & 3A, EOIZ Industrial Area (currently with ACIT Survey No.85 & 86, Sadarmangala Vs. Circle-3(1)(2)) Village Bangalore Krishnarajapuram Hobli B…

M/S Subex Ltd vs. The Deputy Commissioner

Appeal is allowed

ITA/787/2017HC Karnataka22 Dec 2022

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 260Section 92

…isions. The actual amount of invoice which would be approved by the assessee could vary substantially. If tax were to be deducted at the year end, then it would 7[2009] 312 ITR 225 (SC) 8[2010] 327 ITR 456 (SC) 9[2015] 372 ITR 33 (Kar) 10Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. I.T.A No.787/2017 7 result in higher/lower deduction of taxes payable at a later stage. Therefore, in the absence of definite credit…

Subramanian Sreeram, Bangalore vs. CIT(Appeals)-NFAC, National Faceless Appeal Centre

The appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 1027/BANG/2022[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Dec 2022AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Navneet N. Kini, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(1)Section 90

…circulars : • Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan [2003] 132 Taxman 373/263 ITR 706 (SC) • CIT v. Eli Lilly & Co. (India) (P.) Ltd. [2009] 178 Taxman 505/312 ITR 225 (SC) • GE India Technology Centre (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2010] 7 taxmann.com 18/193 Taxman 234/327 ITR 456 (SC) • Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2021] 125 taxmann.com 42/281 Taxman 1 9/432 ITR 471 (SC) (Pg 106-109 of PB 2-Para 25 & 26) • CBDT Circular No 333 dated 2/4/82 137 ITR (St.) Page 9 of 10 It was submitted that when there is no condition prescribed in DTAA that the FTC can be disallowed for non- compliance of any…

DCIT, Ltu(Appeal)-1, Chennai vs. Turbo Energy Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals filed by the revenue for both the assessment years ...

ITA 3044/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2901 & 2902/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Turbo Energy Private Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 67 Chamiers Road, V. Income Tax, Raja Annamalaipuram, Large Tax Payer Unit -1, Chennai – 600 028. Chennai – 600 034 [Pan: Aaact-2916-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3043 & 3044/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Assistant Commissioner Of Turbo Energy Private Limited, Income Tax, V. 67 Chamiers Road, Large Tax Payer Unit -2, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai – 600 034 Chennai – 600 028. [Pan: Aaact-2916-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Bhoopathi, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. Bhoopathi, Addl. CIT
Section 2(29)(BA)Section 35Section 40Section 80I

…f Sec.9(1)(vii) and Sec.195 has no application. The assessee also relied on the following decisions:  Brakes India Ltd. V. DCIT (LTU) (266/Mds/2012) (Chennai)  Sun Micro Systems India (P) Ltd (125 ITD 196) (Bang)  G.E. Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd., Vs. CIT (327 ITR 456) 8.2 We heard the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record. The assessee has produced the copy of the agreement before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) examined the Explanation :-22-: ITA. No:2901, 2902 ,3043 & 3044/Chny/2019 of the assessee and the document placed before the CIT and concluded that the services rendered by the n…