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

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 3043/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

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…

Turbo Energy Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Ltu(Appeal)-1, 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 2902/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…

Turbo Energy Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Ltu(Appeal)-1, 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 2901/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

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…

Standard Chartered Global Business Services Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT International Taxation 2(2), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 2092/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadhri (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Sheila Parthasarathy (Addl.CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘बी’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय +ी वी. दुगा1 राव, "ाियक सद3 एवं माननीय +ी मनोज कुमार अ8वाल ,लेखा सद3 के सम:। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.2092/Chny/2017 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/s. Standard Chartered Global Business DCIT Services Pvt. Ltd. International Taxation-2(2), बनाम/ Vs. (formerly known as Scope International Pvt. Ltd.) Chennai. No.1, Haddows Road, Chennai – 600 006. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./PAN/GIR No. AAECS-9043-E (अपीलाथ"/Appell…

Comnr.of Income Tax vs. Paradeep Phosphates

ITA/113/2013HC Orissa15 Nov 2022

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

Section 143(3)Section 195(1)Section 263Section 40

…Page 1 of 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ITA No.113 of 2013 Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhubaneswar …. Appellant Mr. T. K. Satapathy, Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue Department -versus- M/s. Paradeep Phosphates Ltd., Bhubaneswar …. Respondent None CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE M.S. RAMAN Order No. ORDER 15.11.2022 04. 1. The Revenue in an appeal is against an order dated 13th June, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (ITAT) in ITA No.328/CTK/…

Intrado Ec India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. DCIT-Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 239/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 143(3)Section 153Section 2CSection 40Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.239/Bang/2021 Assessment year : 2016-17 Intrado EC India Private Ltd. Vs. The Deputy (formerly West Unified Commissioner of Income Communications India Pvt. Ltd.], Tax, # 135, 1st Floor, RMZ Titanium, Circle 3(1)(1), Old Airport Road, Kodihalli, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 017. PAN: AAACI 6707K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri T. Suryanarayana, Advocate Respondent by : Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 02.11.2022 Dat…

Hewlett Packard (India) Software Operation Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 413/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.413/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 192Section 195Section 37Section 40Section 92C

…to tax to Ultimate Holding Company and hence the provisions of Section 195 of the Act would not apply. • The above principle has been upheld by various Courts including the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Cen.(P.). Ltd vs CIT [2010] 327 ITR 456 (SC). Relevant extract of the Supreme Court decision is reproduced below - "Section 195 falls in Chapter XVII which deals with collection and recovery. Chapter XVII-B deals with deduction at source by the payer. On analysis of various provisions of Chapter XVII one finds use of different expressions, however, the expression "sum chargeable under…

Hewlett Packard (India) Software Operation Private Limited, 2016-17 vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 213/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.213/Bang/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Arya, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 92C

…to tax to Ultimate Holding Company and hence the provisions of Section 195 of the Act would not apply. • The above principle has been upheld by various Courts including the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Cen.(P.). Ltd vs CIT [2010] 327 ITR 456 (SC). Relevant extract of the Supreme Court decision is reproduced below - "Section 195 falls in Chapter XVII which deals with collection and recovery. Chapter XVII-B deals with deduction at source by the payer. On analysis of various provisions of Chapter XVII one finds use of different expressions, however, the expression "sum chargeable under…

Sanjiv Gopal, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 743/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2020-21 Shri. Sanjiv Gopal, Vs. Adit, No.181, Ground Floor Mandara, Cpc, 2B Cross, 4Th Main, Domlur 2Nd Stage, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 071. Pan : Agvpg 2262 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. V. Sridhar, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Gudimella V. P. Pavan Kumar, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 27.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.09.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. V. Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Gudimella V. P. Pavan Kumar, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 90

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2020-21 Shri. Sanjiv Gopal, Vs. ADIT, No.181, Ground Floor Mandara, CPC, 2B Cross, 4th Main, Domlur 2nd Stage, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 071. PAN : AGVPG 2262 P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. V. Sridhar, CA Revenue by : Shri. Gudimella V. P. Pavan Kumar, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 27.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 29.09.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan, Vice President This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the…

Spe India Films Holding Llc, Mumbai vs. ACIT (Intl Tax) -4(2) (2), Mumbai

In the result ground no-2 raised by the assessee- is fully allowed

ITA 457/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalspe India Films Holding Llc C/O, Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp One International Centre, Tower No.3, 27Th Floor-32Nd Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road (W), Mumbai-400013. Pan: Aaocs1827L ...... Appellant Vs. Acit (International Taxation)-4(2)(2) 16Th Floor, Air India Building, Narimaon Point, Mumbai-400021. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. P.J. Pardiwala/Paras Savla Respondent By : Sh. A.K. Keshari Date Of Hearing : 27/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/09/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Drp’] Dated 06.01.2022 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Appellant, Objects To The Order Dated 19 January 2022 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) Passed By The Learned Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax (International Taxation) - 4(2)(2), Mumbai

For Appellant: Sh. P.j. Pardiwala/Paras SavlaFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Keshari
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234CSection 270ASection 9(1)(vi)

…e would apply and consequently the sums are not chargeable to tax in India and do not warrant deduction of tax at source u/s 195 of the Act. In this regard, we find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Cen. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2010] 327 ITR 456/193 Taxman 234/7 taxmann.com 18 had held that TDS obligation would arise on the assessee only when the sum is chargeable to tax in India u/s 4, 5 & 9 of the Act.' The learned Counsel for the assessee also relied on the decision of another co- ordinate Bench in the case of ADIT vs. Warner Brother Pictures Inc. (2012) taxmann.com 171 (Mumbai), wher…

Anuj Bhagwati, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1845/MUM/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Baskaran B.R& Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Anuj Bhagwati Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax- Nishant House, 6, Circle – 1(1)(1), Mumbai, Carmichael Road, Room No.533, 5Th Floor, Cumballa Hill S.O, Mumbai-400086 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Pan: Aehpb1858C Mumbai-400020 Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Manoj Sinha.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 90

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BASKARAN B.R, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER& SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & Anuj Bhagwati Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax- Nishant House, 6, Circle – 1(1)(1), Mumbai, Carmichael Road, Room No.533, 5th Floor, Cumballa Hill S.O, Mumbai-400086 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road PAN: AEHPB1858C Mumbai-400020 Appellant Respondent Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri. Manoj Sinha.DR Date of hearing : 13/09/2022 Date of pronouncement : 20/09/2022 ORDER PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM: These are the two appeals filed by the assessee against the separa…

Anuj Bhagwati, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1844/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Baskaran B.R& Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Anuj Bhagwati Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax- Nishant House, 6, Circle – 1(1)(1), Mumbai, Carmichael Road, Room No.533, 5Th Floor, Cumballa Hill S.O, Mumbai-400086 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Pan: Aehpb1858C Mumbai-400020 Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Manoj Sinha.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 90

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BASKARAN B.R, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER& SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & Anuj Bhagwati Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax- Nishant House, 6, Circle – 1(1)(1), Mumbai, Carmichael Road, Room No.533, 5th Floor, Cumballa Hill S.O, Mumbai-400086 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road PAN: AEHPB1858C Mumbai-400020 Appellant Respondent Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri. Manoj Sinha.DR Date of hearing : 13/09/2022 Date of pronouncement : 20/09/2022 ORDER PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM: These are the two appeals filed by the assessee against the separa…

Shashidhar Seetharam Sharma, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax Officer, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 708/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Shashidhar Seetharam Sharma, Vs. Ito, Flat B002, Renaissance Brindavan, Cpc, Uttarahalli Main Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru South, Bengaluru – 560 061. Pan : Ahwps 5221 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Ca Revenue By : Shri. K. Sankar Ganesh, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 19.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.09.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Y. Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. K. Sankar Ganesh, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 90

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Shashidhar Seetharam Sharma, Vs. ITO, Flat B002, Renaissance Brindavan, CPC, Uttarahalli Main Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru South, Bengaluru – 560 061. PAN : AHWPS 5221 Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Y. Sridhar, CA Revenue by : Shri. K. Sankar Ganesh, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 19.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 19.09.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan, Vice President This is an appeal filed by the Assessee ag…

Sulzer Pumps India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle-15 (3)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7318/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of Sulzer Pumps India Pvt Ltd. Income Tax, Circle 15(3)(2), Plot No.9, Midc, Digha, Room No. 451, Aayakar Thane- Belapur Road, Navi Vs. Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Mumbai-400 708 Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaack2238F Assessee By : Shri V. Shridharan & Ms. Manasi C, Ar Revenue By : Shri C T Mathew, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2022

For Appellant: Shri V. Shridharan &For Respondent: Shri C T Mathew, DR
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vii)Section 92C

…for serving its foreign based clients. In this context, a question arises whether at the time of making payments for such services, deduction of tax at source was31 necessary. 6. In the case of GE India Technology Centre P. Limited v. CIT reported in [2010] 327 ITR 456 (SC), the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court was that mere remittance of money to a non-resident would not give rise to the requirement of deducting tax at source, unless such remittance contains wholly or partly taxable income. It is true that after such judgment was rendered, the Legislature had amended section 195 of the Act by inserting Exp…

M/S. Epp Composites Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 154/RJT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot14 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Epp Composites Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Principal Commissioner Plot No.2646, Gidc Metoda, Of Income Tax, Rajkot – 1. Rajkot. [Pan – Aabce 2957 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ar Respondent By : Shri B.D. Gupta, Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.09.2022 O R D E R Per Suchitra Kamble: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.03.2018 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Rajkot For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 195Section 263Section 40Section 9

…yee and consequently in law there was no liability to deduct tax at source under Section 195, as there was no income chargeable in India. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre (P) Limited (2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC), Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. (2019) 416 ITR 1 (SC) and Maruti Suzuki India Limited (2019) 416 ITR 613 (SC). The Ld. AR alternately contended that if it is held that there was error in the order of assessment as stated by the PCIT, the directions of the PCIT be modified to allow deduction of Rs.1,37,56,848/- in the year o…

DCIT-3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Karvat Cover More Assist Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4288/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Reepal TralshawalaFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 195(2)Section 250Section 40

…cts in the year under consideration vis-à-vis the assessment years during which the aforesaid Nil withholding tax certificates were issued under section 195(2) of the Act. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in GE India Technology Cen. (P.) Ltd. vs CIT: [2010] 327 ITR 456 (SC) held that section 195(2) provides a remedy by which a person may seek a determination of the "appropriate proportion of such sum so chargeable", where a proportion of the sum so chargeable is liable to tax. Once, the assessee has sought the remedy provided under the Act and the Competent Authority of the Income Tax Department after considera…

Vinodkumar Lakshmipathi, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 680/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Navaneeth Kini, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, D.R
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 90

…ITA No.680/Bang/2022 Vinodkumar Lakshmipathi, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018-19 Vinodkumar Lakshmipathi No.14, 2nd Avenue, Vishveshwaraiah Enclave DR Bandre Road CIT(A) NFAC Vs. Kammagondanahalli Delhi Bangalore 560 015 PAN NO : ABVPL0743K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Navaneeth Kini, A.R. Respondent by : Shri K.R. Narayana, D.R. Date of Hearing : 06.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 06.09.2022 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: Th…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2008-09,

ITA 1673/CHNY/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1673, 1688, 1689, 1691/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. United India Insurance Co. Tax, V. Ltd., Large Tax Payer Unit, 24, Whites Road, Chennai – Chennai. 600 014. [Pan: Aaacu-5552-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 1693/Chny/2011, 36/Chny/2014 & 696/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. United India Insurance Co. Tax, V. Ltd., Large Tax Payer Unit, 24, Whites Road, Chennai – Chennai. 600 014. [Pan: Aaacu-5552-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. S. Sundararaman, Ca Department Represented By : Shri. M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel & Ms. V. Pushpa, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.08.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R

Section 195Section 195(1)Section 40Section 5(2)(b)

…67. In the case of M/s. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (ITA No. 1718/Mum/2020), the Mumbai ITAT relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd., vs CIT (327 ITR 456) held that when a NRR does not have any place of business or branch or any business connection or permanent establishment in India, the payments made by an assessee to a foreign insurer is not chargeable to tax in India in the hands of the foreign reinsurer in terms of Section 195(1) of the Income Tax Act and therefore there is no obligation on t…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment year

ITA 1666/CHNY/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1356/Chny/2013, 1626/Chny/2011 & 2310/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2005-06 & 2010-11 M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Assistant Commissioner Of Insurance Company Limited V. Income Tax, “Sundaram Towers” Large Tax Payer Unit, 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1628, 1629 & 1630/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Deputy Commissioner Of Insurance Company Limited V. Income Tax, “Sundaram Towers” Large Tax Payer Unit, 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1666/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06 Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Tax, V. Insurance Company Limited Large Tax Payer Unit, “Sundaram Towers” Chennai. 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 195Section 3Section 40Section 5

…ce, payments made to NRR are not chargeable to tax in India, question of application u/s.195(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, does not arise and this principle is explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. G.E.India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd., 327 ITR 456 (SC), where it was held that :-37-: ITA. No:1356 /Chny/2013, 1626, 1628, 1629, 1630 & 1666/Chny/2011 & 2310/Chny/2014 application to deduct TDS arises only if income of non-resident is chargeable to tax in India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that expression ‘chargeable’ under the provisions u/s.195(1) of the Act says that remittance has go…

M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment year

ITA 1630/CHNY/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1356/Chny/2013, 1626/Chny/2011 & 2310/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2005-06 & 2010-11 M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Assistant Commissioner Of Insurance Company Limited V. Income Tax, “Sundaram Towers” Large Tax Payer Unit, 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1628, 1629 & 1630/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Deputy Commissioner Of Insurance Company Limited V. Income Tax, “Sundaram Towers” Large Tax Payer Unit, 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1666/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06 Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Tax, V. Insurance Company Limited Large Tax Payer Unit, “Sundaram Towers” Chennai. 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 195Section 3Section 40Section 5

…ce, payments made to NRR are not chargeable to tax in India, question of application u/s.195(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, does not arise and this principle is explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. G.E.India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd., 327 ITR 456 (SC), where it was held that :-37-: ITA. No:1356 /Chny/2013, 1626, 1628, 1629, 1630 & 1666/Chny/2011 & 2310/Chny/2014 application to deduct TDS arises only if income of non-resident is chargeable to tax in India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that expression ‘chargeable’ under the provisions u/s.195(1) of the Act says that remittance has go…