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 372,380 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

Sqs India Bfsi Ltd. (Formerly Known As M/S. Thinksoft Global Services Ltd.), Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 6(2), Chennai

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

ITA 224/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 May 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 223 & 224/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Sqs India Bfsi Ltd. (Formerly The Deputy Commissioner Of Known As M/S. Thinksoft Global Vs. Income Tax, Services Ltd.) Door No. 6A, 6Th Floor, Corporate Circle 6(2), Prince Infocity Ii, 283/3 & 283/4, Rajiv Chennai. Gandhi Salai (Omr), Kandanchavadi, Chennai 600 036. [Pan:Aabct0976G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.03.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.05.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai, Dated 31.10.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14. Besides Challenging Confirmation Of Disallowance Of Export Commission Payment In The Assessment Year 2012-13, The Assessee Also Challenged Confirmation Of Disallowance Towards Payments For Professional Services Rendered For Both The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14. 2

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CIT
Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)

…ion 195(1) of the Act in the hands 10 I.T.A. Nos. 223 & 224/Chny/19 of the non-resident agents and accordingly, the provisions of section 195(2) of the Act would not come into operation at all. The head notes in the case of GE Technology Center Pvt. Ltd. in 327 ITR 456 (SC) are reproduced hereunder:- Section 195 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Deduction of tax at source - Payment to non-resident -the moment a remittance is made to a nonresident, obligation to deduct tax at source does arise; it arises only when such remittance is a sum chargeable under Act, i.e., chargeable under 4, 5 and 9 - Held, yes - Whether…

Sqs India Bfsi Ltd. (Formerly Known As M/S. Thinksoft Global Services Ltd.), Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 6(2), Chennai

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

ITA 223/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 May 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 223 & 224/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Sqs India Bfsi Ltd. (Formerly The Deputy Commissioner Of Known As M/S. Thinksoft Global Vs. Income Tax, Services Ltd.) Door No. 6A, 6Th Floor, Corporate Circle 6(2), Prince Infocity Ii, 283/3 & 283/4, Rajiv Chennai. Gandhi Salai (Omr), Kandanchavadi, Chennai 600 036. [Pan:Aabct0976G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.03.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.05.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai, Dated 31.10.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14. Besides Challenging Confirmation Of Disallowance Of Export Commission Payment In The Assessment Year 2012-13, The Assessee Also Challenged Confirmation Of Disallowance Towards Payments For Professional Services Rendered For Both The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14. 2

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CIT
Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)

…ion 195(1) of the Act in the hands 10 I.T.A. Nos. 223 & 224/Chny/19 of the non-resident agents and accordingly, the provisions of section 195(2) of the Act would not come into operation at all. The head notes in the case of GE Technology Center Pvt. Ltd. in 327 ITR 456 (SC) are reproduced hereunder:- Section 195 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Deduction of tax at source - Payment to non-resident -the moment a remittance is made to a nonresident, obligation to deduct tax at source does arise; it arises only when such remittance is a sum chargeable under Act, i.e., chargeable under 4, 5 and 9 - Held, yes - Whether…

DCIT (It) - 4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Wns Capital Investment, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal, as also the CO, are dismissed

ITA 3851/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2021AY 2009-10
Section 195Section 195(1)Section 201Section 9(1)(i)

…t source u/s 195(1) of the Act on payments made to Aviva International Holdings Ltd UK in July,2008 under the existing law at that time relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of GE Technology Centre (P) Ltd vs CIT & Anr., (2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC), without considering that this decision is not applicable as the retrospective amendments made to section 9(1)(i) and section I95(1) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2012, are declaratory and clarificatory in nature and explain the existing law regarding chargeability of capital gains arising from indirect of assets situate in India and liabil…

Air India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO (TDS)(International Taxation), New Delhi

ITA 2262/DEL/2017[2013-14 (F.Y. 2012-13)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2021

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Pal Puri, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Shiv Swaroop Singh, Senior DR
Section 154Section 200A

…TR 225 (SC) observed that the provisions of tax withholding i.e. section 195 of the Act would apply only to sums which are otherwise chargeable to tax under the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, (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…

Air India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO (TDS)(International Taxation), New Delhi

ITA 2261/DEL/2017[2013-14 (F.Y. 2012-13)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2021

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Pal Puri, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Shiv Swaroop Singh, Senior DR
Section 154Section 200A

…TR 225 (SC) observed that the provisions of tax withholding i.e. section 195 of the Act would apply only to sums which are otherwise chargeable to tax under the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, (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…

Air India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO (TDS)(International Taxation), New Delhi

ITA 2260/DEL/2017[2013-14 (F.Y. 2012-13)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2021

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Pal Puri, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Shiv Swaroop Singh, Senior DR
Section 154Section 200A

…TR 225 (SC) observed that the provisions of tax withholding i.e. section 195 of the Act would apply only to sums which are otherwise chargeable to tax under the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, (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…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Hero Honda Motors Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6302/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 80I

…O regarding the expenditure to be capital or revenue in nature. 16.0.1 In support of the grounds of appeal, the Ld. AR argued that it is now settled by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of G.E. India Technology Centre (P) Ltd. vs. CIT: 327 ITR 456, that if the payment is not taxable in India as per the provisions of Treaty, then the payer-assessee is not liable to deduct tax at source under section 195 of the Act. It was argued that the aforesaid payment was not taxable in India as per Article 12 of Indo- USA DTAA which was applicable to income earned by non-resident in the nature of “f…

M/S. Hero Motocorp Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6282/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 80I

…O regarding the expenditure to be capital or revenue in nature. 16.0.1 In support of the grounds of appeal, the Ld. AR argued that it is now settled by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of G.E. India Technology Centre (P) Ltd. vs. CIT: 327 ITR 456, that if the payment is not taxable in India as per the provisions of Treaty, then the payer-assessee is not liable to deduct tax at source under section 195 of the Act. It was argued that the aforesaid payment was not taxable in India as per Article 12 of Indo- USA DTAA which was applicable to income earned by non-resident in the nature of “f…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-5 vs. M/S. Puma Sports India P., Ltd

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA/223/2018HC Karnataka12 Mar 2021

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 260Section 40Section 5(2)(b)Section 9(1)(i)Section 92C

…following judgments: 1. Commissioner of Income Tax, Andhra Pradesh Vs. M/s. Toshoku Ltd. Guntur and Others reported in 1980 (Supp). SCC 614 2. GE India Technology Centre Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and Another reported in (2010)10 SCC 29 3. The judgment in ITA Nos.1008 to 1013/Bang/2012 decided on 04.10.2013 (M/s. Exotic Fruits Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer) 4. The judgment in R/Tax Appeal No.281 of 2019 decided on 30.07.2019 (The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 Vs. Ferromatic Milacron India Pvt. Ltd.) 5. The judgment in T.C.(A) No.789 of 2013 decide…

DCIT-9(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Aramex India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 4157/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit – 9(1)(2) Aramex India Pvt Ltd., बनाम/ Rno. 210, 2Nd Floor, 821, Solitaire Cooperate Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Park, Andheri Ghatkoper Road, Mumbai. Link Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400093. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacca6756A .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Harit, CIT-DRFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 194CSection 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER DCIT – 9(1)(2) Aramex India Pvt Ltd., बनाम/ RNo. 210, 2nd Floor, 821, Solitaire Cooperate Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, MK Park, Andheri Ghatkoper Road, Mumbai. Link Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400093. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AACCA6756A .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Rajeev Harit, CIT-DR ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : None 15/12/2020 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement 11/03/2021 आ…

The DCIT, Circle-4, Ahmedabad vs. Ghcl Limited, Ahmedabad

ITA 976/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Mar 2021AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, CIR-D.R. &
Section 143(2)Section 144C(2)(b)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 92C

…no property through or from which the income has been earned. Therefore, the provisions of section 9 (l)(i) also cannot be applied. 4.13. Reliance is placed on the'judgement of honourable Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre Private Limited 327 ITR 456 and the judgement of honourable ITAT Mumbai in the case of our Ardesi B Cursetjee & Sons Ltd. 115TTJ 916. 4.14. Therefore, in view of the preceding discussion the AO was not justified to hold that the commission payable to the overseas agents was deemed to accrue or arise in India and is taxable under the Act in view of the specific provisions of…

Ghcl Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-4, Ahmedabad

ITA 1042/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Mar 2021AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, CIR-D.R. &
Section 143(2)Section 144C(2)(b)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 92C

…no property through or from which the income has been earned. Therefore, the provisions of section 9 (l)(i) also cannot be applied. 4.13. Reliance is placed on the'judgement of honourable Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre Private Limited 327 ITR 456 and the judgement of honourable ITAT Mumbai in the case of our Ardesi B Cursetjee & Sons Ltd. 115TTJ 916. 4.14. Therefore, in view of the preceding discussion the AO was not justified to hold that the commission payable to the overseas agents was deemed to accrue or arise in India and is taxable under the Act in view of the specific provisions of…

M/S Prestige Estates Projects Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-18(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 813/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt.R.Premi, JCIT-DR
Section 191Section 194Section 201Section 201(1)Section 206ASection 4

…s but also to gross sums which contains the element of income chargeable to tax under the Act. This principle was reiterated by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Eli Lilly and Co. India (P) Ltd [2009] 312 ITR 225 and GE India Technology Centre P. Ltd. v. CIT [2010] 327 ITR 456. To Quote the relevant observations of the Supreme Court from the former decision: “Under the 1961 Act, total income for the previous year is chargeable to tax under Section 4. Section 4(2) inter alia provides that in respect of income chargeable under Section 4(1), income-tax shall be deducted at source where it is so deductible under any provis…

Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

C.A. No.-008733-008734 - 2018Supreme Court02 Mar 2021

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

…ad been made, the resident Indian importers became liable to deduct tax at source, without more, under section 195(1) of the Income Tax Act. 9. This view of the High Court was set aside by this Court in GE India Technology Centre (P) Ltd. v. CIT, (2010) 10 SCC 29 [“GE Technology”], which ultimately found that the judgment of the High Court dated 24.09.2009 had misread AP Transco (supra). Consequently, this Court remanded the matter to the High Court of Karnataka to decide, on merits, the question of law framed as follows: “24. In our view, Section 195(2) is based on the “principle of proportionality”.…

M/S Modern Threads (India) Ltd., Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 199/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Feb 2021AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Madhukar Garg (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (JCIT)
Section 195Section 195(1)Section 245R(2)Section 40

…t paid by the assessee not being chargeable to tax in India in respect of payee, no tax was required to be deducted at source and reliance was placed on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of G.E.(India) Technology Centre (P) Limited vs. CIT reported in 327 ITR 456 as well as another decision of Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation vs. CIT 314 ITR 309. The assessee had also relied on number of cases of various High Courts in which it was held that no tax was required to be deducted at source in respect of payment of commission to non- resident agents. The assessee had also filed comp…

Modern Threads (India) Limited, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 198/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Feb 2021AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Madhukar Garg (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (JCIT)
Section 195Section 195(1)Section 245R(2)Section 40

…t paid by the assessee not being chargeable to tax in India in respect of payee, no tax was required to be deducted at source and reliance was placed on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of G.E.(India) Technology Centre (P) Limited vs. CIT reported in 327 ITR 456 as well as another decision of Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation vs. CIT 314 ITR 309. The assessee had also relied on number of cases of various High Courts in which it was held that no tax was required to be deducted at source in respect of payment of commission to non- resident agents. The assessee had also filed comp…

M/S. Vishay Components India Private Limited, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 13, Pune

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

ITA 1969/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Navin Gupta
Section 143(3)

…withhold tax at source in India to remittances on cost allocation and as such no TDS was deducted as it is not taxable in India. 12. The AO was of the opinion that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Cen (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 327 ITR 456 did not suggest that the quantum of income embedded in the sum paid to the non-resident which is chargeable to tax is the test for deducting tax at source and by referring to Sub-section (1) of Section 195 of the Act that the quantum of income embedded in the sum paid is a subject of the sum paid to the non-resident. He observed that sum paid by…

Kapoor Watch Company Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Cirlce-75(1), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 889/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri O. P. Kant & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 889/Del/2020 (A.Y 2011-12) (Through Video Conferencing) Kapoor Watch Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit G-7, South Extension, Part-1, Circle-75(1) New Delhi New Delhi Aaack3885A (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv & Sh. Lalit Mohan, Ca Respondent By Sh. Sohail Malik, Sr. Dr

Section 133ASection 194Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 201(3)

…S deductible or not and, if deductible under which Section TDS has to be deducted depend on nature receipt of payee/recipient from whose payment TDS to be deducted. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: i) GE India Technology Centre (P) Ltd. vs. CIT 327 ITR 456 (SC) ii) Vijay Ship Breaking Corpn. & Ors. Vs. CIT 314 ITR 309 (SC) The Ld. AR further submitted that nature of payment in hands of payer is not deciding/relevant factor for deciding nature of receipt in hands of recipient. In this regard reliance is placed on judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Empire Jute Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 124 ITR 1 b…

Standard Chartered Global Business Services Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT International Taxation 2(2), Chennai

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

ITA 1962/CHNY/2017[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Dec 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1961 To 1964/Chny/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S. Standard Chartered Global Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Business Services Pvt.Ltd., International Taxation 2(2), [Formerly Known As Scope 62, Greams Road, International Pvt.Ltd.] Thousand Lights, No.1, Haddows Road, Chennai6-600 006. Nungambakkam. Chennai-600 006. Pan:Aaecs9043E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. R.Anitha, JCIT
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 248

…a, or tax in respect of which stands already paid by or on behalf of the payees, so that no tax was in fact deductible u/s. 195. Reference in this context may also be made to the decision by the Apex Court in GE India Technology Centre (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2010] 327 ITR 456 (SC). Section 248 provides the mechanism for recovery of the tax paid u/s. 195 on other than interest paid. The onus to prove its claims though would be on the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) shall decide qua each of the sums remitted per a speaking order, issuing definite findings of fact. The assessee, needless to add, shall render all assistance and…

Standard Chartered Global Business Services Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT International Taxation 2(2), Chennai

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

ITA 1961/CHNY/2017[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Dec 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1961 To 1964/Chny/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S. Standard Chartered Global Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Business Services Pvt.Ltd., International Taxation 2(2), [Formerly Known As Scope 62, Greams Road, International Pvt.Ltd.] Thousand Lights, No.1, Haddows Road, Chennai6-600 006. Nungambakkam. Chennai-600 006. Pan:Aaecs9043E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. R.Anitha, JCIT
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 248

…a, or tax in respect of which stands already paid by or on behalf of the payees, so that no tax was in fact deductible u/s. 195. Reference in this context may also be made to the decision by the Apex Court in GE India Technology Centre (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2010] 327 ITR 456 (SC). Section 248 provides the mechanism for recovery of the tax paid u/s. 195 on other than interest paid. The onus to prove its claims though would be on the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) shall decide qua each of the sums remitted per a speaking order, issuing definite findings of fact. The assessee, needless to add, shall render all assistance and…