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 372,272 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, 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 1693/CHNY/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

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. 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 1691/CHNY/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2006-07

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. 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 1689/CHNY/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2005-06

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. 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 1688/CHNY/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2004-05

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. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai

ITA 1676/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…

Eit Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 210/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 92D

…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). While the AO has considered the decision of GE India Technology Cen. (P.). Ltd in the FAO but without examining the facts of the case, has proceeded to conclude that ESOP cross charge is in the nature of income and are taxable under the Act. 20.24 Given the above facts and the judicial precedents, the Company submits that ESOP expense is a…

The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Excel Chemicals India Pvt. Limited, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1692/AHD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Aug 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Karan Shah, A.R
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 195Section 40

…n law that when the payment made to a nonresident does not have an element of income, tax deduction source requirements under section 195(2) do not come into play at all. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of GE India Technology Centre (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2010] 327 ITR 456/193 Taxman 234/7 taxmann.com 18, has inter alia observed as follows: In our view, Section 195(2) is based on the "principle of proportionality". The said sub-Section gets attracted only in cases where the payment made is a composite payment in which a certain proportion of payment has an. element of "income" chargeable to tax in India. It is in t…

National Petroleum Construction Company vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(2) International Taxation New Delhi

Appeal is hereby allowed to the extent

C.A. No.-004964-004964 - 2022Supreme Court29 Jul 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE

Section 143(1)Section 197

…nd duration of activities in India. Whether project activity in India continued for a period of more than nine months, for taxability in India in terms of the AADT, is a question of fact, that has to be determined separately for each Assessment Year. 1 (2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC) 16 40. It may be true, that for a non-resident entity to be taxed in India, it should carry on business through a Permanent Establishment in India, as held by this Court in Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries Ltd. v. Director of Income Tax, Mumbai2 and Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. v. Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd.3. However, t…

Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation-1, New Delhi vs. Air India Ltd

ITA/233/2022HC Delhi28 Jul 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

Section 12(4)Section 2Section 206ASection 7Section 90(2)

…is a digitally signed Judgement. NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002862 ITA No.233/2022 Page 7 of 8 are otherwise chargeable to tax under the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT,MANU/SC/0688/2010 : (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…

M.P. State Civil Supplies Corp. Ltd vs. Income Tax Officer(TDS)-1

In the result, the assessee‟s appeals are dismissed

ITA 24/JAB/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur08 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Abhijeet Srivastava, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Mehrotra, Sr.DR
Section 197Section 201

…s not hinged by or subject to any conditionality, that perhaps one could argue of non-liability to TDS (inasmuch as the tax deduction provisions would extend only to income chargeable to tax), else not (see G.E. India Technology Centre (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2010] 327 ITR 456 (SC)). The Apex Court in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage P. Ltd. (supra) held that a payer may not deduct tax at source where the same stands already deposited by the payee (with the Central Govt.), adducing proof to that effect, though shall be liable to interest for the delayed payment of tax as well as penalty, being the position of law as clarif…

M.P. State Civil Supplies Corp. Ltd vs. Income Tax Officer(TDS)-1

In the result, the assessee‟s appeals are dismissed

ITA 23/JAB/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur08 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Abhijeet Srivastava, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Mehrotra, Sr.DR
Section 197Section 201

…s not hinged by or subject to any conditionality, that perhaps one could argue of non-liability to TDS (inasmuch as the tax deduction provisions would extend only to income chargeable to tax), else not (see G.E. India Technology Centre (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2010] 327 ITR 456 (SC)). The Apex Court in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage P. Ltd. (supra) held that a payer may not deduct tax at source where the same stands already deposited by the payee (with the Central Govt.), adducing proof to that effect, though shall be liable to interest for the delayed payment of tax as well as penalty, being the position of law as clarif…

M.P. State Civil Supplies Corp. Ltd vs. Income Tax Officer(TDS)-1

In the result, the assessee‟s appeals are dismissed

ITA 22/JAB/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur08 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Abhijeet Srivastava, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Mehrotra, Sr.DR
Section 197Section 201

…s not hinged by or subject to any conditionality, that perhaps one could argue of non-liability to TDS (inasmuch as the tax deduction provisions would extend only to income chargeable to tax), else not (see G.E. India Technology Centre (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2010] 327 ITR 456 (SC)). The Apex Court in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage P. Ltd. (supra) held that a payer may not deduct tax at source where the same stands already deposited by the payee (with the Central Govt.), adducing proof to that effect, though shall be liable to interest for the delayed payment of tax as well as penalty, being the position of law as clarif…

Mapei Construction Products (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 283/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 283/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Mapei Construction Products (India) Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant A01 & B01, Solus Jain Commissioner Of Heights, Income Tax, 1St Floor, 1St Cross, Circle 4 (1)(2), J C Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 002. Pan: Aahcm0464A Appellant Respondent : Shri S. Ramasubramanyam, Assessee By Ca : Shri Janardhan, Addl. Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 04-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Final Assessment Order Dated 24/03/2021 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Under National Assessment Centre, New Delhi, Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 143(3A) & (3B) Of The Act, For The Assessment Year 2016- 17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Jurisdiction 1.1. That The Learned Lower Authorities Erred In Law & On Facts In Referring The Case To The Learned Transfer Pricing

For Respondent: Shri S. Ramasubramanyam
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 40Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No. 283/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/s. Mapei Construction Products (India) Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant A01 and B01, Solus Jain Commissioner of Heights, Income Tax, 1st Floor, 1st Cross, Circle 4 (1)(2), J C Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 002. PAN: AAHCM0464A APPELLANT RESPONDENT : Shri S. Ramasubramanyam, Assessee by CA : Shri Janardhan, Addl. CIT Revenue by DR Date of Hearing : 04-03-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 01-06-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, J…

Sharda Educational Trust, Greater Noida vs. ITO (TDS), International Taxation, Noida

In the result, ITA.No.3377/Del

ITA 3383/DEL/2018[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Anupma Anand, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 133ASection 195Section 201(1)

…hows that under this Section a person shall be liable to deduct tax at source out of the payment or remittance made to a non-resident if such sum is chargeable to tax. We find the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GE Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd., vs., CIT 327 ITR 456 (SC) has held that “tax has to be deducted at source if the income is chargeable to tax in the hands of the non-resident in India.” 10.8. Now the question arises as to whether the remittances made by the assessee to these agents as per the terms and conditions of the MoU are chargeable to tax in the case of the non-resident. Provisions of sectio…

Sharda Educational Trust, Greater Noida vs. ITO (TDS), International Taxation, Noida

In the result, ITA.No.3377/Del

ITA 3382/DEL/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Anupma Anand, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 133ASection 195Section 201(1)

…hows that under this Section a person shall be liable to deduct tax at source out of the payment or remittance made to a non-resident if such sum is chargeable to tax. We find the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GE Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd., vs., CIT 327 ITR 456 (SC) has held that “tax has to be deducted at source if the income is chargeable to tax in the hands of the non-resident in India.” 10.8. Now the question arises as to whether the remittances made by the assessee to these agents as per the terms and conditions of the MoU are chargeable to tax in the case of the non-resident. Provisions of sectio…

Sharda Educational Trust, Greater Noida vs. ITO (TDS), International Taxation, Noida

In the result, ITA.No.3377/Del

ITA 3381/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Anupma Anand, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 133ASection 195Section 201(1)

…hows that under this Section a person shall be liable to deduct tax at source out of the payment or remittance made to a non-resident if such sum is chargeable to tax. We find the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GE Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd., vs., CIT 327 ITR 456 (SC) has held that “tax has to be deducted at source if the income is chargeable to tax in the hands of the non-resident in India.” 10.8. Now the question arises as to whether the remittances made by the assessee to these agents as per the terms and conditions of the MoU are chargeable to tax in the case of the non-resident. Provisions of sectio…

Sharda Educational Trust, Greater Noida vs. ITO (TDS), International Taxation, Noida

In the result, ITA.No.3377/Del

ITA 3380/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Anupma Anand, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 133ASection 195Section 201(1)

…hows that under this Section a person shall be liable to deduct tax at source out of the payment or remittance made to a non-resident if such sum is chargeable to tax. We find the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GE Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd., vs., CIT 327 ITR 456 (SC) has held that “tax has to be deducted at source if the income is chargeable to tax in the hands of the non-resident in India.” 10.8. Now the question arises as to whether the remittances made by the assessee to these agents as per the terms and conditions of the MoU are chargeable to tax in the case of the non-resident. Provisions of sectio…

Sharda Educational Trust, Greater Noida vs. ITO (TDS), International Taxation, Noida

In the result, ITA.No.3377/Del

ITA 3379/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Anupma Anand, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 133ASection 195Section 201(1)

…hows that under this Section a person shall be liable to deduct tax at source out of the payment or remittance made to a non-resident if such sum is chargeable to tax. We find the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GE Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd., vs., CIT 327 ITR 456 (SC) has held that “tax has to be deducted at source if the income is chargeable to tax in the hands of the non-resident in India.” 10.8. Now the question arises as to whether the remittances made by the assessee to these agents as per the terms and conditions of the MoU are chargeable to tax in the case of the non-resident. Provisions of sectio…

Sharda Educational Trust, Greater Noida vs. ITO (TDS), International Taxation, Noida

In the result, ITA.No.3377/Del

ITA 3378/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Anupma Anand, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 133ASection 195Section 201(1)

…hows that under this Section a person shall be liable to deduct tax at source out of the payment or remittance made to a non-resident if such sum is chargeable to tax. We find the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GE Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd., vs., CIT 327 ITR 456 (SC) has held that “tax has to be deducted at source if the income is chargeable to tax in the hands of the non-resident in India.” 10.8. Now the question arises as to whether the remittances made by the assessee to these agents as per the terms and conditions of the MoU are chargeable to tax in the case of the non-resident. Provisions of sectio…

Sharda Educational Trust, Greater Noida vs. ITO (TDS), International Taxation, Noida

In the result, ITA.No.3377/Del

ITA 3377/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Anupma Anand, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 133ASection 195Section 201(1)

…hows that under this Section a person shall be liable to deduct tax at source out of the payment or remittance made to a non-resident if such sum is chargeable to tax. We find the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GE Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd., vs., CIT 327 ITR 456 (SC) has held that “tax has to be deducted at source if the income is chargeable to tax in the hands of the non-resident in India.” 10.8. Now the question arises as to whether the remittances made by the assessee to these agents as per the terms and conditions of the MoU are chargeable to tax in the case of the non-resident. Provisions of sectio…