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 372,263 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

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 1629/CHNY/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

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 1628/CHNY/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2006-07

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 1626/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…

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

ITA 1621/CHNY/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha(अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) S.

For Appellant: Mr. Percy J. PardiwallaFor Respondent: Mr. M.Swaminathan, Sr.Standing
Section 195Section 3Section 40Section 5

…n 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 ITA Nos. 40/Chny/2009, 1759 & 1676/Chny/2011, 1366/Chny/2013 & 949 to 951/Chny/2018 Technology Centre Pvt.Ltd., 327 ITR 456 (SC), where it was held that 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 got to be treated as receipt, whole or part of which is liable to tax in India, if tax is n…

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

ITA 1620/CHNY/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha(अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) S.

For Appellant: Mr. Percy J. PardiwallaFor Respondent: Mr. M.Swaminathan, Sr.Standing
Section 195Section 3Section 40Section 5

…n 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 ITA Nos. 40/Chny/2009, 1759 & 1676/Chny/2011, 1366/Chny/2013 & 949 to 951/Chny/2018 Technology Centre Pvt.Ltd., 327 ITR 456 (SC), where it was held that 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 got to be treated as receipt, whole or part of which is liable to tax in India, if tax is n…

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai

ITA 40/CHNY/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha(अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) S.

For Appellant: Mr. Percy J. PardiwallaFor Respondent: Mr. M.Swaminathan, Sr.Standing
Section 195Section 3Section 40Section 5

…n 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 ITA Nos. 40/Chny/2009, 1759 & 1676/Chny/2011, 1366/Chny/2013 & 949 to 951/Chny/2018 Technology Centre Pvt.Ltd., 327 ITR 456 (SC), where it was held that 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 got to be treated as receipt, whole or part of which is liable to tax in India, if tax is n…

M/S. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

ITA 2146/CHNY/2008[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha(अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) S.

For Appellant: Mr. Percy J. PardiwallaFor Respondent: Mr. M.Swaminathan, Sr.Standing
Section 195Section 3Section 40Section 5

…n 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 ITA Nos. 40/Chny/2009, 1759 & 1676/Chny/2011, 1366/Chny/2013 & 949 to 951/Chny/2018 Technology Centre Pvt.Ltd., 327 ITR 456 (SC), where it was held that 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 got to be treated as receipt, whole or part of which is liable to tax in India, if tax is n…

ACIT Ltu 2, Chennai vs. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai

ITA 950/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha(अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) S.

For Appellant: Mr. Percy J. PardiwallaFor Respondent: Mr. M.Swaminathan, Sr.Standing
Section 195Section 3Section 40Section 5

…n 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 ITA Nos. 40/Chny/2009, 1759 & 1676/Chny/2011, 1366/Chny/2013 & 949 to 951/Chny/2018 Technology Centre Pvt.Ltd., 327 ITR 456 (SC), where it was held that 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 got to be treated as receipt, whole or part of which is liable to tax in India, if tax is n…

ACIT Ltu 2, Chennai vs. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai

ITA 949/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha(अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) S.

For Appellant: Mr. Percy J. PardiwallaFor Respondent: Mr. M.Swaminathan, Sr.Standing
Section 195Section 3Section 40Section 5

…n 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 ITA Nos. 40/Chny/2009, 1759 & 1676/Chny/2011, 1366/Chny/2013 & 949 to 951/Chny/2018 Technology Centre Pvt.Ltd., 327 ITR 456 (SC), where it was held that 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 got to be treated as receipt, whole or part of which is liable to tax in India, if tax is n…

M/S Cholamandalam Ms General Insusrance Company Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Parge Tax Payer Unit 2

ITA 784/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha(अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) S.

For Appellant: Mr. Percy J. PardiwallaFor Respondent: Mr. M.Swaminathan, Sr.Standing
Section 195Section 3Section 40Section 5

…n 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 ITA Nos. 40/Chny/2009, 1759 & 1676/Chny/2011, 1366/Chny/2013 & 949 to 951/Chny/2018 Technology Centre Pvt.Ltd., 327 ITR 456 (SC), where it was held that 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 got to be treated as receipt, whole or part of which is liable to tax in India, if tax is n…

M/S Cholamandalam Ms General Insusrance Company Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Parge Tax Payer Unit 2

ITA 783/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha(अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) S.

For Appellant: Mr. Percy J. PardiwallaFor Respondent: Mr. M.Swaminathan, Sr.Standing
Section 195Section 3Section 40Section 5

…n 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 ITA Nos. 40/Chny/2009, 1759 & 1676/Chny/2011, 1366/Chny/2013 & 949 to 951/Chny/2018 Technology Centre Pvt.Ltd., 327 ITR 456 (SC), where it was held that 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 got to be treated as receipt, whole or part of which is liable to tax in India, if tax is n…

M/S Cholamandalam Ms General Insusrance Company Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Parge Tax Payer Unit 2

ITA 782/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha(अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) S.

For Appellant: Mr. Percy J. PardiwallaFor Respondent: Mr. M.Swaminathan, Sr.Standing
Section 195Section 3Section 40Section 5

…n 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 ITA Nos. 40/Chny/2009, 1759 & 1676/Chny/2011, 1366/Chny/2013 & 949 to 951/Chny/2018 Technology Centre Pvt.Ltd., 327 ITR 456 (SC), where it was held that 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 got to be treated as receipt, whole or part of which is liable to tax in India, if tax is n…

ACIT, Chennai vs. United India Insurance Company, 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 696/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

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…

ACIT, 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 36/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

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…

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, Chennai vs. Addl. CIT, Chennai

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

ITA 2310/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

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…

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

ITA 2276/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha(अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) S.

For Appellant: Mr. Percy J. PardiwallaFor Respondent: Mr. M.Swaminathan, Sr.Standing
Section 195Section 3Section 40Section 5

…n 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 ITA Nos. 40/Chny/2009, 1759 & 1676/Chny/2011, 1366/Chny/2013 & 949 to 951/Chny/2018 Technology Centre Pvt.Ltd., 327 ITR 456 (SC), where it was held that 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 got to be treated as receipt, whole or part of which is liable to tax in India, if tax is n…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd., Chennai

ITA 1366/CHNY/2013[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha(अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) S.

For Appellant: Mr. Percy J. PardiwallaFor Respondent: Mr. M.Swaminathan, Sr.Standing
Section 195Section 3Section 40Section 5

…n 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 ITA Nos. 40/Chny/2009, 1759 & 1676/Chny/2011, 1366/Chny/2013 & 949 to 951/Chny/2018 Technology Centre Pvt.Ltd., 327 ITR 456 (SC), where it was held that 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 got to be treated as receipt, whole or part of which is liable to tax in India, if tax is n…

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 1356/CHNY/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

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…

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

ITA 1350/CHNY/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha(अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) S.

For Appellant: Mr. Percy J. PardiwallaFor Respondent: Mr. M.Swaminathan, Sr.Standing
Section 195Section 3Section 40Section 5

…n 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 ITA Nos. 40/Chny/2009, 1759 & 1676/Chny/2011, 1366/Chny/2013 & 949 to 951/Chny/2018 Technology Centre Pvt.Ltd., 327 ITR 456 (SC), where it was held that 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 got to be treated as receipt, whole or part of which is liable to tax in India, if tax is n…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai

ITA 1759/CHNY/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha(अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) S.

For Appellant: Mr. Percy J. PardiwallaFor Respondent: Mr. M.Swaminathan, Sr.Standing
Section 195Section 3Section 40Section 5

…n 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 ITA Nos. 40/Chny/2009, 1759 & 1676/Chny/2011, 1366/Chny/2013 & 949 to 951/Chny/2018 Technology Centre Pvt.Ltd., 327 ITR 456 (SC), where it was held that 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 got to be treated as receipt, whole or part of which is liable to tax in India, if tax is n…