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 372,374 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. Tecnotree Convergence Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 3157/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

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…

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

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

ITA 3156/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

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…

Chander Mohan Lal, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle - 61(1), New Delhi

ITA 1869/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

Section 194CSection 40A(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘D’: NEW DELHI (Through Video Conferencing) BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Sh. Chander Mohan Lall, Assistant Commissioner of D-17, South Extension, Part-2, Income Tax, New Delhi-110049 Circle-6(1), Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Centre, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, New Delhi-110002 PAN-AAFPL6527N Appellant Respondent Appellant by Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Sh. Neeraj Jain, Adv. Ms. Manisha Sharma Adv. Respondent by Sh. F.R. Meena - Sr. DR Date of Hearing 29.11.2021 Date of Pronouncement 09.12.2021…

M/S Deccan Creations Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-11(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2010-11

ITA 1212/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Vice Presidnet & Shri B.R Baskaran

For Appellant: Smt. Jinitan Chaterjee, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 195(2)Section 40

…to between India and the respective Country, it was held that the income earned is taxable in those Countries. In support of the conclusion, the CIT(A) relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G.E.Technology Centre (P) Ltd., vs. CIT [327 ITR 456]. Thus, on facts, the nature of services rendered by the non-resident to the assessee was considered by the CIT(A) after perusing the copies of the agreement. This factual finding has attained finality as the appeal filed by the revenue before the Tribunal was dismissed by the impugned order. 6. Further, the assessee would place reliance on the…

M/S Deccan Creations Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-11(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2010-11

ITA 1211/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Vice Presidnet & Shri B.R Baskaran

For Appellant: Smt. Jinitan Chaterjee, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 195(2)Section 40

…to between India and the respective Country, it was held that the income earned is taxable in those Countries. In support of the conclusion, the CIT(A) relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G.E.Technology Centre (P) Ltd., vs. CIT [327 ITR 456]. Thus, on facts, the nature of services rendered by the non-resident to the assessee was considered by the CIT(A) after perusing the copies of the agreement. This factual finding has attained finality as the appeal filed by the revenue before the Tribunal was dismissed by the impugned order. 6. Further, the assessee would place reliance on the…

M/S Deccan Creations Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-11(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2010-11

ITA 1210/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Vice Presidnet & Shri B.R Baskaran

For Appellant: Smt. Jinitan Chaterjee, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 195(2)Section 40

…to between India and the respective Country, it was held that the income earned is taxable in those Countries. In support of the conclusion, the CIT(A) relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G.E.Technology Centre (P) Ltd., vs. CIT [327 ITR 456]. Thus, on facts, the nature of services rendered by the non-resident to the assessee was considered by the CIT(A) after perusing the copies of the agreement. This factual finding has attained finality as the appeal filed by the revenue before the Tribunal was dismissed by the impugned order. 6. Further, the assessee would place reliance on the…

Ajay Arora, Kanpur vs. Addl. CIT, Kanpur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 90/LKW/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…accrued or arisen in India, or deemed to be so, either u/s. 9(1)(i) or u/s. 9(1)(vii)(b). Reliance is placed onCIT v. R.D. Aggarwal & Co. [1965] 56 ITR 20 (SC);CIT v. Toshoku Ltd. [1980] 125 ITR 525 (SC); andGE India Technology Centre (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2010] 327 ITR 456 (SC), besides on theorder by the Agra Bench of the Tribunal in Asst. CIT v. Manufax India (in ITA Nos. 434 & 446/Agra/2015, dated 11.4.2018/copy on record). 3. I have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. 3.1 At the outset it needs to be clarified that where the amount paid by the assessee to the non-resident payee (OD) is indee…

Brinda Ramakrishna, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 454/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice-

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Counsel
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 90

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “SMC-B” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE-PRESIDENT ITA. No. 454/Bang/2021 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ms. Brinda RamaKrishna, 106, Eshwari Emerald, The Income Tax Officer, 6th E Main, Gauravnagar, Ward 5(3)(1), JP Nagar 7th Phase, Bangalore. Bangalore. vs. PAN: AFNPR6614P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, Advocate Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Revenue by : Counsel Date of Hearing : 10.11.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 17.11.2021 ORDER PER N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE-PRESIDENT This is an appeal by the assessee against th…

Chennai Petroleum Corpn Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2009-10 & 2010-11 in ITA Nos

ITA 495/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 689/Chny/2012 & 495/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 M/S. Chennai Petroleum The Joint Commissioner Of Corporation Ltd., V. Income Tax, 536, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Ltu, Chennai- 600 018. Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aaacm 4392C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. S. Bharath, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05.10.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.10.2021

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. S. Bharath, CIT
Section 195Section 195(1)Section 40

…India Inc (HEPI) and not the profit chargeable to tax. 2. The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated as per the provisions of Article 7 of the DTAA between India and USA, the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of G.E.Technology Centre P Ltd v CIT 327 ITR 456 and the clarification issued by the CBDT vide Instruction No.02/2014 dated :-4-: ITA. Nos: 689/Chny/2012 & 495/Chny/2014 26.02.2014 read with CBDT Circular No.3/2015 dt 12.02.2015 the Assessing Officer has to first determine the income chargeable to tax under the Indian Income Tax Act 1961 on which tax has to be deducted and then compute the amo…

Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are allowed in part

ITA/673/2016HC Karnataka28 Sept 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 12ASection 194JSection 260Section 260A

…IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI I.T.A.No.673/2016 C/W I.T.A.No.671/2016 & I.T.A.No.672/2016 IN I.T.A.No.673/2016: BETWEEN : BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED, 3RD FLOOR, BMTC COMPLEX, K.H.ROAD, SHANTI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560027 ...APPELLANT (BY SRI A.SHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI BHAIRAV KUTTAIAH, ADV.) AND : DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1) 4TH FLOOR, HMT BHAVAN, BENGALURU-560032…

ACIT, Circle- 10(2), New Delhi vs. Groz Engineering Tools Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

ITA 3895/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2021AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40a

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’: NEW DELHI (Through Video Conferencing) BEFORE, SHRI R.K.PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A No.3894/Del/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12) I.T.A No.3895/Del/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14) ACIT, Circle-10(2), M/s Groz Engineering New Delhi. Tools Pvt. Ltd., Vs. C-717, New Friends Colony, New Delhi-110 065. PAN-AABCG 4017H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Anima, Sr. DR Respondent by Sh. Ved Jain, CA & Sh. Ashish Goel, CA Date of Hearing 17.06.2021 Date of Pronouncement 13.09.2021 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRI…

ACIT, Circle- 10(2), New Delhi vs. Groz Engineering Tools Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

ITA 3894/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2021AY 2011-12
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40a

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’: NEW DELHI (Through Video Conferencing) BEFORE, SHRI R.K.PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A No.3894/Del/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12) I.T.A No.3895/Del/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14) ACIT, Circle-10(2), M/s Groz Engineering New Delhi. Tools Pvt. Ltd., Vs. C-717, New Friends Colony, New Delhi-110 065. PAN-AABCG 4017H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Anima, Sr. DR Respondent by Sh. Ved Jain, CA & Sh. Ashish Goel, CA Date of Hearing 17.06.2021 Date of Pronouncement 13.09.2021 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRI…

M/S Shindengen India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3343/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.3343/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Shindengen India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Plot No.283/2, Bommasandra Jigani Link Circle -6(1)(1), Road, Bengaluru – 560 105. Bengaluru. Pan : Aarcs 8947 E Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. S. D. Kapila, Advocate Respondent By : Shri. Pradeep Kumar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 30.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.08.2021 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojarithis Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.10.2018 Passed By The Dcit, Circle 6-(1)(1), Bengaluru, U/S.143(3) Read With Sec.144C (13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act), In Relation To Ay 2014-15. 2. The First Issue That Arises For Consideration In This Appeal Is With Regard To The Addition Made To The Total Income Of The Assessee Of A Sum Of Rs.21,61,37,271 Being An Addition Made Consequent To Determination Of Arm’S Length Price (Alp) U/S.92 Of The Act, In Respect Of An International Transaction Entered Into By The Assessee With Its Associated Enterprise (Ae). The Assessee Is A Wholly Owned Subsidiary Of Shindengen Electric Mfg Co., Ltd, Japan. It Was Incorporated In India On August 21, 2012 Under The Indian

For Appellant: Shri. S. D. Kapila, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.3343/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/s. Shindengen India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Plot No.283/2, Bommasandra Jigani Link Circle -6(1)(1), Road, Bengaluru – 560 105. Bengaluru. PAN : AARCS 8947 E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri. S. D. Kapila, Advocate Respondent by : Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru Date of hearing : 30.08.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 31.08.2021 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari, Accountant…

ACIT, C-4(1), Chandigarh vs. M/S Winsome Textile Industries Ltd., Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 373/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri R.L Negi

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Ashok Khanna Addl. CIT
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 195Section 36Section 36(1)Section 40Section 43

…peal no 276/2/15-16 for assessment year 2013-14 decided the issue after considering the aforesaid decision of the ITAT, Chandigarh Bench and also considered the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre (P) Ltd. vs CIT (2010) 327 ITR 456 / 193 Taxman 234 17.The issue was decided as under:- " The aforesaid decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court has discussed of case law of Transmission Corporation which has been distinguished on the facts that in that case there was a composite contract have bearings in India. In the present case, the entire activity of sales done by the respective com…

Jas Forwarding Worldwide Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011 – 12 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1687/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor advocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Barnwal, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 40Section 92CSection 92C(2)

…educt tax if such sum is not chargeable to tax. This view has been upheld by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Van Oord ACZ India (P) Ltd. vs CIT, 323 ITR 130; and by Hon'ble Supreme Court ruling in the case GE India Technology Cent. (P) Ltd (2010); 327 ITR 456. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that person paying interest or any other sum to non-resident is not liable to deduct tax if such sum is not chargeable to tax. Thus, in the absence of any 'business connection, there was no obligation on the Assessee to deduction tax u/s 195 of the Act and thus correspondingly no disallowance could be made u/s…

Jas Forwarding Worldwide Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011 – 12 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2484/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor advocateFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Pal [CIT] – DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 40Section 92CSection 92C(2)

…educt tax if such sum is not chargeable to tax. This view has been upheld by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Van Oord ACZ India (P) Ltd. vs CIT, 323 ITR 130; and by Hon'ble Supreme Court ruling in the case GE India Technology Cent. (P) Ltd (2010); 327 ITR 456. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that person paying interest or any other sum to non-resident is not liable to deduct tax if such sum is not chargeable to tax. Thus, in the absence of any 'business connection, there was no obligation on the Assessee to deduction tax u/s 195 of the Act and thus correspondingly no disallowance could be made u/s…

Virupaksha Organics Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-17(2), Hyderabad

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 1211/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri V.Siva Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 40

…Dt.03-01-2017 hold that such foreign sales commission expenses are not exigible to TDS deduction once the concerned recipients have not rendered any services in India. Hon'ble apex court’s landmark decision in GE India Technology Centre P. Ltd. v. CIT (2010) [327 ITR 456] also holds that chapter-XVII of the Act requiring TDS deduction applies only in case the corresponding income is assessable in the payees’ hands and not otherwise. We follow the very reasoning mutatis mutandis :- 3 -: to decline Revenue’s argument seeking to invoke Section 40(a)(ia) qua assessee’s overseas commission payments disallowance payme…

M/S. Prime Oceanic Pvt. Ltd. Gandhi Nagar, Upla Sonava, Scheme No.8, Alwar vs. ITO Ward-2(3), Alwar

In the result, the disallowance so made is directed to be deleted and the ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 652/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jun 2021AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)
Section 195Section 40

…uct tax at source at the time of making payment as the payments made by the assessee do not give rise to any “sum chargeable to tax” in India in the hands of recipient. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of G. E. India technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (2010) 327 ITR 456 has, categorically held that the tax deducted at source obligations u/s 195(1) of the Act arises, only if the payment is chargeable to tax in the hands of the non resident recipient. (Headnote reproduced) : Deduction of tax at source — Mere remittance to non-resident — Duty to deduct tax at source — Does not arise unless remittance contains whol…

Airport Authority of India, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5163/DEL/2012[2011-12 (F.Y. 2010-11)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2021

Bench: Sh. K. N. Charydr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5162/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 5163/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Airports Authority Of India, Vs Income Tax Officer(Tds), Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan, Safdarjung Ward-1(1), Airport, New Delhi-110003 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaca6412D Assessee By : Sh. Ashish Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sohail Malik, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.02.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.05.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sohail Malik, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10(6)(ii)Section 115A

…195(1), liability to deduct tax at source arises when sum payable to a non-resident is chargeable to tax in India. The law on this issue has been laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in its decision in case of GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC). The relevant observations of the Hon’ble SC are reproduced below: ITA No. 5162 & 5163/Del/2012 14 Airport Authority of India 7. “It may be noted that Section 195 contemplates not merely amounts, the whole of which are pure income payments, it also covers composite payments which has an element of income embedded or incorporated in them. T…

Airport Authority of India, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5162/DEL/2012[2010-11 (F.Y. 2009-10)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2021

Bench: Sh. K. N. Charydr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5162/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 5163/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Airports Authority Of India, Vs Income Tax Officer(Tds), Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan, Safdarjung Ward-1(1), Airport, New Delhi-110003 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaca6412D Assessee By : Sh. Ashish Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sohail Malik, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.02.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.05.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sohail Malik, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10(6)(ii)Section 115A

…195(1), liability to deduct tax at source arises when sum payable to a non-resident is chargeable to tax in India. The law on this issue has been laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in its decision in case of GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC). The relevant observations of the Hon’ble SC are reproduced below: ITA No. 5162 & 5163/Del/2012 14 Airport Authority of India 7. “It may be noted that Section 195 contemplates not merely amounts, the whole of which are pure income payments, it also covers composite payments which has an element of income embedded or incorporated in them. T…