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 372,309 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

Jay Chemical Industries Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)2, Ahmedabad

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1724/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vayawala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajdeep Singh, Sr.D.R
Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 40Section 92C

…016 A.Y. 2012-13 & 2013-14 Page No 11 Jay Chemical Industries Ltd.. vs. DCIT/ACIT agents had permanent establishments in India, the said provision did not apply. He relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of G.E. Technology Cen. Pvt. Ltd. 327 ITR 456 in this regard. Accordingly he held that the A.O. was not justified to hold that the commission payable to the overseas agents was deemed to accrue or arise in India in terms of Section 5(2)(b) r.w.s. 9(1)(i) of the Act. As for the genuineness of the payment, the ld. CIT(A) noted that the voluminous document placed on record indicated that the ag…

Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT - 8(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1718/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2022AY 2015-16
Section 101ASection 143(3)Section 2(9)Section 3Section 30Section 37Section 37(1)Section 40

…me Tax Act. Hence, there is no obligation on the part of the assessee payer to deduct tax at source thereon. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd., vs CIT reported in 327 ITR 456. Accordingly, the provisions of Section 40(a)(i) of the Act would not come into operation at all. Moreover, these decisions were duly quoted by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) vide its submission dated 25/02/2020 which was completely ignored by the ld. CIT(A) while adjudicating the issue. 3.21. We further find that the Co-ordinate Bench decis…

DCIT, C-4, Jaipur vs. M/S. Jlc Electromet Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 166/JPR/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Apr 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra GargieyaFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…ation though can explain the main provision but can never override or violate the terms of the main provision. Kindly refer Prithvi Information Infra. 6.1 Supporting case laws: 6.1.1 GE India Technology Cen. P Ltd v. CIT 6.1.2 The issue in hand is directly70) 327 ITR 456(SC) covered by the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s Modern Insulators Ltd. (2014) 110 DTR 0297 (Raj) 6.1.3 Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble ITAT Hyderabad in the case of Prithvi Information Solutions Ltd. Vs. ITO (2014) 34 ITR 0028 (Hyd Trib) 6.1.4 Also kindly refer Gujarat Reclaim & Rubber Products Lt…

M/S. Indecomm Global Services (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 are partly allowed, as indicated above

ITA 2800/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 40

…ing of taxes applies only to sums chargeable to tax and hence there is no liability to withhold tax on year-end provisions. The said ruling had also placed reliance on the following rulings of the Apex Court:  M/s GE India Technology Centre P. Ltd. vs. CIT [327 ITR 456] held that if payment is not assessable to tax there is no question of tax at source being deducted.  CIT Vs M/s Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. [46 ITR 144] held that mere entry in the books of the accounts does not establish the accrual of the income in the hands of the payee. Notwithstanding and without prejudice to the above, the appellant requests…

M/S. Indecomm Global Services (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 are partly allowed, as indicated above

ITA 2799/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 40

…ing of taxes applies only to sums chargeable to tax and hence there is no liability to withhold tax on year-end provisions. The said ruling had also placed reliance on the following rulings of the Apex Court:  M/s GE India Technology Centre P. Ltd. vs. CIT [327 ITR 456] held that if payment is not assessable to tax there is no question of tax at source being deducted.  CIT Vs M/s Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. [46 ITR 144] held that mere entry in the books of the accounts does not establish the accrual of the income in the hands of the payee. Notwithstanding and without prejudice to the above, the appellant requests…

Tata Consultancy Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Large Tax Payer Unit-1, Mumbai

797/Mum/2018

ITA 1769/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2022AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(43)Section 37Section 40Section 90

…ct. On the other hand, at the heart of section 195 of the Act is the fact that deductions can only be made if the non-resident assessee is liable to pay tax under the provisions of the Act in the first place. GE INDIA TECHNOLOGY CENTRE (P.) LTD. V. CIT 120101 327 ITR 456 (SC) explained. PILOM v. CIT 120201425 ITR 312 (SC) explained and distinguished. The "person" spoken Of in section 195(1) of the Art is liable to make the necessary deductions only if the non-resident is liable to pay tax as an asses-see under the Act, and not otherwise. The tax deductor must take into consideration the effect of the DTAA provis…

ACIT, Circle-10(2), New Delhi vs. Graziano Transmission India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 397/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh Malhotra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mrinal Kumar Das, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I-1”: NEW DELHI BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Asstt. Year: 2014-15 ACIT, Circle-10(2) Vs. Graziano Transmission India Room No. 238A, Pvt. Ltd. 2nd Floor, 510-511. 5th Floor, C.R. Building, DLF Tower-B, Jasola, I.P. Estate, ITO, New Delhi – 110 025 New Delhi – 110 001 PAN AAACG4258M (Appellant) (Respondent) Department by: Shri Mrinal Kumar Das, Sr. DR Assessee by : Shri Rishabh Malhotra, AR Date of Hearing 03/03/2022 Date of 11 /04/2022 pronouncement O R D E R PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM This appeal is filed by the Reven…

The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Baroda vs. Inox India Private Ltd., Vadodara

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1246/AHD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

For Appellant: Shri Purushottam Kumar
Section 195Section 5

…der under section 195. In our considered view, the assessee, for the detailed reasons set our above, did not have tax withholding liability from these payments. As held by 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, payer is bound to withhold tax from the foreign remittance only if the sum paid is assessable to tax in India. The assessee cannot, therefore, be faulted for not approaching the Assessing Officer under section 195 either. As regards the withdrawal of the CBDT circular holding that the commission payments to non-re…

The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Baroda vs. Inox India Private Ltd., Vadodara

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1245/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

For Appellant: Shri Purushottam Kumar
Section 195Section 5

…der under section 195. In our considered view, the assessee, for the detailed reasons set our above, did not have tax withholding liability from these payments. As held by 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, payer is bound to withhold tax from the foreign remittance only if the sum paid is assessable to tax in India. The assessee cannot, therefore, be faulted for not approaching the Assessing Officer under section 195 either. As regards the withdrawal of the CBDT circular holding that the commission payments to non-re…

Play Games 24 X 7 Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy.CIT-13(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed whereas the Cross-objection filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1533/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Promod Kumar () & Ms. Suchitra Kamble () Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr. Percy J. Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Chintamani V. Dingankar, Sr. DR
Section 195Section 40Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “I” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PROMOD KUMAR (VICE PRESIDENT) AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Play Games 24X7 Private Limited, DY. CIT-13(1)(2), 401, B-Wing, 4th floor, Interface 16, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Off Malad Link Road, Malad (West), Vs. Karve Road, Mumbai-400067. Mumbai-400020. PAN No. AADCP 9139 P Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 13/MUM/2021 (In ITA No. 1533/MUM/2019) Assessment Year: 2015-16 DY. CIT-13(1)(2), Play Games 24X7 Private Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Limited, Mumbai-400020. Vs. 401, B-Wing, 4th floor, Interf…

Rane Engine Valves Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1496/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1175, 1495 & 1496/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 M/S.Rane Engine Valves Ltd., V. The Dy. Commissioner- “Maithri” No.132, Of Income Tax, Cathedral Road, Corporate Circle-5(3), Chennai-600 086. Chennai. [Pan: Aaact 1279 M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.03.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.03.2022

For Respondent: Mr.P.V.Pradeep Kumar, CIT
Section 10Section 195Section 35DSection 37Section 40A

…alls under independent professional service under Article 14 of India-USA DTAA and hence not taxable in India. 2.6 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not following the ratio laid down In the case of G.E.India Technology Centre(P) Ltd (vs) CIT (327 ITR 456 (SC) wherein it was held that a person paying interest or any other sum to non-resident is liable to deduct tax u/s.195 only if such sum is chargeable to tax in India and not otherwise. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appear) erred in confirming the disallowance of the compensation paid under Welfare Oriented VRS of Rs.23, 61,5287- on the gro…

Rane Engine Valves Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1495/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1175, 1495 & 1496/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 M/S.Rane Engine Valves Ltd., V. The Dy. Commissioner- “Maithri” No.132, Of Income Tax, Cathedral Road, Corporate Circle-5(3), Chennai-600 086. Chennai. [Pan: Aaact 1279 M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.03.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.03.2022

For Respondent: Mr.P.V.Pradeep Kumar, CIT
Section 10Section 195Section 35DSection 37Section 40A

…alls under independent professional service under Article 14 of India-USA DTAA and hence not taxable in India. 2.6 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not following the ratio laid down In the case of G.E.India Technology Centre(P) Ltd (vs) CIT (327 ITR 456 (SC) wherein it was held that a person paying interest or any other sum to non-resident is liable to deduct tax u/s.195 only if such sum is chargeable to tax in India and not otherwise. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appear) erred in confirming the disallowance of the compensation paid under Welfare Oriented VRS of Rs.23, 61,5287- on the gro…

Rane Engine Valves Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1175/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1175, 1495 & 1496/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 M/S.Rane Engine Valves Ltd., V. The Dy. Commissioner- “Maithri” No.132, Of Income Tax, Cathedral Road, Corporate Circle-5(3), Chennai-600 086. Chennai. [Pan: Aaact 1279 M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.03.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.03.2022

For Respondent: Mr.P.V.Pradeep Kumar, CIT
Section 10Section 195Section 35DSection 37Section 40A

…alls under independent professional service under Article 14 of India-USA DTAA and hence not taxable in India. 2.6 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not following the ratio laid down In the case of G.E.India Technology Centre(P) Ltd (vs) CIT (327 ITR 456 (SC) wherein it was held that a person paying interest or any other sum to non-resident is liable to deduct tax u/s.195 only if such sum is chargeable to tax in India and not otherwise. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appear) erred in confirming the disallowance of the compensation paid under Welfare Oriented VRS of Rs.23, 61,5287- on the gro…

M/S Playsimple Games Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 5(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1125/BANG/2019[2016/17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Mar 2022

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 234BSection 234DSection 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year: 2016-17 Playsimple Games Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner No.92-93, Garden Citi Plaza, of Income Tax, 2nd Floor, Amar Jyoti HBCS Circle 5(1)(2), Layout, Domlur, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 071. PAN: AAHCP 8965D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Deepak Kumar Jain, CA Respondent by : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 09.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 09.03.2022 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari, Accou…

Income Tax Officer -4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited, Mumbai

In the result, these appeals by the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 6177/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Laliet Kumar (Jm)

Section 195Section 201(1)Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

…re cannot be any liability on the assessee to deduct tax at source u/s. 195 of the Act. Further, the assessee has made submissions in this regard that as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of G. E. Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (327 ITR 456)(SC), there is no liability to deduct TDS when the income is held to be not chargeable to tax in the hands of the recipient. 11. We find that the identical issue was considered by this Tribunal in the case of Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst. Director of Income - tax (International Taxation) (in I.T.A. Nos.599 to 614/Mum/2016 vide order dated 0…

The ACIT, Circle- 2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Gujarat Ambuja Exports Limited, Ahmedabad

ITA 1550/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Us.

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Singh, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv
Section 250(6)Section 80I

…xpediency and incidental to the assessee's main business activity, loss on account of irrecoverable loan given to subsidiary companies in the normal course of business is allowable as revenue loss: (i) GE India Technology Center (P). Ltd vs. CIT & Ors. (2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC) "A person paying interest or any other sum to a non-resident is liable to deduct tax under s. 195 only if such sum is chargeable to tax in India and not otherwise." 13. The ld.CIT(A) has gone through the submissions of the assessee, and held that it has submitted all necessary details exhibiting the fact that payment was made through bankin…

Brakes India Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 560/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Durgesh Sumrott, CIT
Section 10A

…ent of Rs.9,94,945/- to TRW Automotive Services (SDN) BHD, Malaysia for non deduction of tax, overlooking the fact that the payment is only a reimbursement of actual expenditure devoid of any income element. Reliance is placed in GE India Centre Pvt Ltd v CIT 327 ITR 456 (SC). 3. The ld.counsel took us through the order of Tribunal in ITA Nos.558,559/Mds/2016, 444/Mds/2015 & 560/Mds/2016 dated 06.03.2017, para 5. This issue was adjudicated for assessment years 2009-10 & 2010-11 but left out for assessment year 2011- 12. The ld.counsel now requested that exactly identical finding is required in this case also on…

Sabmiller India Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 11(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 7157/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘K ‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & M/s. Anheuser Busch InBev Vs. Assistant / Deputy India Limited (Formerly Commissioner of Income known as SABMiller India Tax Limited) Circle 11(1)(2) Unit No.301-302, Third Mumbai Floor, Dynasty Business Park B-Wing, Andheri Kurla Road Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 059 PAN/GIR No. AAICS2238R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Rajan R. Vora / Shri Hemen Chandariya Revenue by Dr. Yogesh Kamat Date of Hearing 01/02/2022 Date of Pronouncement 24/02/2022 आदेश / O R D…

Asst. CIT 23 (1), Mumbai vs. M/S Ai Quresh Exports, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 6261/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6261/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6262/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Acit-23(1) बिधम/ M/S. Ali Quresh Exports Room No.113, 1St Floor, 310, Rizvi Chambers, Hill Vs. Matru Mandir, Grant Road, Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai-400007. Mumbai-400050. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfa1292M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri S. S. Iyengar (Sr. Dr) Assessee By: Shri Rizwan Hussain Katolwala सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/09/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Above Mentioned Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 31.07.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-32, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2015-16 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Rizwan Hussain KatolwalaFor Respondent: Shri S. S. Iyengar (Sr. DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 195Section 40Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)Section 9(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM (Hearing through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6261/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6262/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) ACIT-23(1) बिधम/ M/s. Ali Quresh Exports Room No.113, 1st Floor, 310, Rizvi Chambers, Hill Vs. Matru Mandir, Grant Road, Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai-400007. Mumbai-400050. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AADFA1292M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue by: Shri S. S. Iyengar…

M/S Tecnotree Convergence Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3158/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Srinath Sadanala, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…ver is earlier. In terms of the aforesaid provision, tax is required to be withheld in respect of payments to non-residents only if such payment is chargeable to tax in India. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre (P) Ltd., Vs. CIT (327 ITR 456) (SC), explaining its earlier decision rendered in the case of Transmission Corporation of AP Vs. CIT (239 ITR 587) (SC), held that only if the income is chargeable to tax in India in the hands of the non-resident recipient, would tax be required to be deducted at source from such payment. Various Courts and Tribunals have followed the aforesaid…