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 372,384 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

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 1964/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 1963/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…

Boeing India Pvt. Ltd (Erstwhile Known As Boeing Intl. Corp. India Pvt. Ltd.), New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 5(1), New Delhi

ITA 2375/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Datar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT DR
Section 192Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…or AY 2015-16 has been stayed by the higher court or some appeal is pending. Ld. DR has also filed written submissions which have been made part of the record by relying on Hon’ble Supreme Court decisions in GE India Technology Cen. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC) & Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd. & Anr. vs. CIT (1999) 239 ITR 587 (SC), which have been duly dealt with and found distinguishable with the facts of the present case by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in taxpayer’s own case for AY 2015-16. 12. Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in taxpayer’s own case for AY 2015-16 (supra) in id…

Boeing India Pvt. Ltd (Erstwhile Known As Boeing Intl. Corp. India Pvt. Ltd.), New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 5(1), New Delhi

ITA 2374/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Datar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT DR
Section 192Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…or AY 2015-16 has been stayed by the higher court or some appeal is pending. Ld. DR has also filed written submissions which have been made part of the record by relying on Hon’ble Supreme Court decisions in GE India Technology Cen. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC) & Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd. & Anr. vs. CIT (1999) 239 ITR 587 (SC), which have been duly dealt with and found distinguishable with the facts of the present case by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in taxpayer’s own case for AY 2015-16. 12. Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in taxpayer’s own case for AY 2015-16 (supra) in id…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Shillong vs. M/S. S.S. Netcom (P) Limited, Shillong

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 461/GTY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati18 Nov 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Hon’Ble& Dr. A.L.Saini, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.461/Gau/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Amitava Sen, JCIT, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri K.M. Roy, AR
Section 10(26)Section 143(3)Section 195(1)Section 197(1)Section 40

…provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 8. On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the action of AO following the decision of Hon'ble Agartala High Court. 9. We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre P. Ltd Vs. CIT, [2010] 327 ITR 456(SC) has held that the most important expression in section 195(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dealt with deduction of tax at source consists of the words chargeable under the provisions of the Act. A person paying interest or any other sum to a non-resident is not liable to deduct tax if such sum is not chargeable to tax under the Act. The expres…

DCIT 8(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Shamrock Pharmachemi P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 862/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M.Balaganeshita Nos. 862 & 863/Mum/2018 (Assessment Years :2013-14 & 2014-15) Dcit-8(2)(1) Vs. M/S. Shamrock Pharmachemi Room No.624, Pvt.Ltd. Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Off Dr. E Moses Road Mumbai-400 020 Worli, Mumbai-400 025 Pan/Gir No.Aaacs6290H (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Bharat Gandhi, Ar Revenue By Shri V.Vinod Kumar, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing 28/10/2020 Date Of Pronouncement 11/11/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per M. Balaganesh (A.M): These Two Appeals Filed By Revenue In Ita Nos. 862 & 863/Mum/2018 For Assessment Years (Ay) 2013-14 & 2014-15 Arise Out Of The Order By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 14, Mumbai In Appeals No.Cit(A)-14/It-170/15-16 & Cit(A)-14/It- 119/16-17, Dated 27/11/2017 (Ld. Cit(A) In Short) Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As Act) Dated 31/08/2016 By The Ld. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-8(2)(1), Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. Ao).

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 195(1)Section 195(2)Section 40

…for lower deduction certificate or nil deduction certificate from the ld. AO. The Ld. CIT(A) also placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Center Pvt.Ltd. vs CIT M/s. Shamrock Pharmachemi Pvt.Ltd. reported in 327 ITR 456(SC) in support of his contentions apart from the following decisions:- (a) Decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Toshoku Ltd reported in 125 ITR 525 (b) (b) decision of Hon‘ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Gujarat reclaim and rubber products pvt Ltd. Reported in 383 ITR 236 (Bom) (c) Decision of Hon‘ble le Delhi High…

Subramaniam Hariharan, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-61(1), New Delhi

ITA 7418/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 37(1)Section 40Section 40a

…ly. There is no dispute that tax is required to be deducted at source only on payments which are chargeable to tax in India. Same is the provision of law and direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of G.E. Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC). According to the provisions of Section 4 of the Act the Income Tax shall be chargeable in respect of total income of the previous year of every person at the rate prescribed for assessment year. Section 5 (2) defines the scope of the total income and in respect of Non residents the total income includes all income from any source received o…

M/S. Device Driven (India) Pvt. Ltd vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/257/2014HC Kerala13 Oct 2020

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(1)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…y on the person making a payment to a non-resident to deduct tax at source I.T.A.No.257 of 2014 - 6 - only when it is a sum chargeable under the provisions of the Act, as has been held in GE India Technology Centre (P) Ltd. v. CIT [(2010) 10 SCC 29 = (2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC)]. A non-resident is not taxable in India and the payment is made for services not coming within the definition of 'fees for technical services'. The activities for which the payment was made having been carried out entirely outside India, there is no tax chargeable on the commission paid even by virtue of the deeming pr…

Ttk Healthcare Tpa Private Limited vs. The Deputy Commissioner

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

ITA/303/2013HC Karnataka12 Oct 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 133ASection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 260Section 260A

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.303 OF 2013 BETWEEN: TTK HEALTHCARE TPA PRIVATE LIMITED NO.2, H.B. COMPLEX 100FT. BTM RING ROAD BTM 1ST STAGE, BTM LAYOUT BANGALORE-560068 REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. GIRISH RAO. ... APPELLANT (BY Mr. T SURYANARAYANA, ADV.,) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) TDS CIRCLE-18(2), 4TH FLOOR NO.59, HMT BHAVAN BELLARY ROAD, BANGALORE-560032. 2. T…

ACIT 28(2), Mumbai vs. Shri. Riyaz Abdul Kader, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2173/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Rajesh Kumarआअसं. 2173/मुं/2019 ("न. व. 2012-13) The Acit 28(2), Room No.307, 3Rd Floor, Tower No.6, Vashi Railway Station Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai 400 703 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Shri Riyaz Abdul Kader Mark International, 31, Mafco Apmc Yard, Sector – 18, Vashi, Navi Mumbai ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Pan: Agfpk 3284R

For Appellant: Shri Akhtar H. AnsariFor Respondent: None
Section 195

…gents has not accrued/arisen deemed to have been accrued or arisen in India. The ld. Departmental Representative could not controvert the findings of the CIT(A) either. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of G.E. India Technology Centre vs. CIT 327 ITR 456 (SC) has held: “If the contention of the Department that the moment there is remittance the obligation to deduct TAS arises is to be accepted then we are obliterating the words "chargeable under the provisions of the Act" in section 195(1). The said expression in section 195(1) shows that the remittance has got to be of a trading receipt, the who…

ACIT -25(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Gepach International, Mumbai

In the result both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5943/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shris. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5943 & 5942/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15)

For Appellant: Ms. Samatha, DR byFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta, AR
Section 143(2)Section 195Section 40Section 9

…the said payment is not an income under the Act and hence not liable for tax deduction under section 195 of the Act. In support of the above we rely on the following judicial pronouncements- > Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G.E. India Technology v. CIT (327 ITR 456) vide order dated 10th September 2010 held as under- "(i)S. 195(1) uses the expression "sum chargeable under the provisions of the Act". This means that a person paying interest or any other sum to a non-resident is not liable to deduct tax if such sum is not chargeable to tax. If the payment does not contain the element of income the payer canno…

The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Cir.-1(2), Rajkot-Gujarat vs. M/S Dml Exim Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot-Gujarat

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 27/RJT/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Jul 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M. N. Maurya, CIT DR
Section 73(1)

…aking following observations: "It can thus be seen that while confirming the order of CIT [A], the Tribunal relied on judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of G.E India Technology Centre P. Limited vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax &Anr., reported in [2010] 327 ITR 456 (SC). In such judgment, it was held and observed that C/TAXAP/309/2018 ORDER the most important expression in Section 195 [1] of the Act consists of the words, "chargeable under the provisions of the Act". It was observed that, "..A person paying interest or any other sum to a non-resident is not liable to deduct tax if such sum is not chargeable…

The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Cir.-1(2), Rajkot-Gujarat vs. M/S D.M.L. Exim Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot-Gujarat

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 360/RJT/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M. N. Maurya, CIT DR
Section 73(1)

…aking following observations: "It can thus be seen that while confirming the order of CIT [A], the Tribunal relied on judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of G.E India Technology Centre P. Limited vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax &Anr., reported in [2010] 327 ITR 456 (SC). In such judgment, it was held and observed that C/TAXAP/309/2018 ORDER the most important expression in Section 195 [1] of the Act consists of the words, "chargeable under the provisions of the Act". It was observed that, "..A person paying interest or any other sum to a non-resident is not liable to deduct tax if such sum is not chargeable…

M/S. D.M.L. Exim Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5, Rajkot-Gujarat

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 315/RJT/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M. N. Maurya, CIT DR
Section 73(1)

…aking following observations: "It can thus be seen that while confirming the order of CIT [A], the Tribunal relied on judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of G.E India Technology Centre P. Limited vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax &Anr., reported in [2010] 327 ITR 456 (SC). In such judgment, it was held and observed that C/TAXAP/309/2018 ORDER the most important expression in Section 195 [1] of the Act consists of the words, "chargeable under the provisions of the Act". It was observed that, "..A person paying interest or any other sum to a non-resident is not liable to deduct tax if such sum is not chargeable…

Bnp Paribas India Solutions P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 12(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1906/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: Shri Farookh V. IraniFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Singh
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A no.1906/Mum./2015 (Assessment Year : 2010–11) BNP Paribas India Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Unit no.601, Infirnity Building no.4 Off Film City Road, Near Nagari Nivara ……………. Appellant Malad (East), Mumbai 400 097 PAN – AACCB5717E v/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–12(1)(2), Mumbai Assessee by : Shri Farookh V. Irani Revenue by : Shri Sanjay Singh Date of Hearing – 20.02.2020 Date of Order – 30.06.2020 O R D E R The captioned appeal has been filed b…

ADIT(It)-I, Hyderabad vs. M/S Kamineni Hospitals Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 1001/HYD/2013[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jun 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Kamineni Hospitals Income Tax-1, (International Pvt Ltd., Transaction), L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aaack 8356 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri A. Srinivas Revenue By: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 31/01/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/06/2020

For Appellant: Sri A. SrinivasFor Respondent: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, CIT-DR
Section 191Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 54

…orities on the earlier occasion and further argued in support of the order of the Ld. CIT (A). The Ld. AR also relied on the following decisions:- (i) Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of GE India Technology Cen. (P.) Ltd. Vs. CIT [2010] reported in 327 ITR 456 (ii) Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad judgment in the case of Jagran Prakashan Ltd vs. DCIT (TDS) [2012] reported in 345 ITR 288 (Allh.) (iii) ITAT, Cochin Bench decision in the case of Thomas Muthoot vs.s DCIT [2013] reported in 21 ITR (T) 133 (Cochin) and (iv) ITAT Kolkata Bench decision in the case of Ramakrishna Vedanta Math vs. Income Tax Of…

Lease Plan India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 6462/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kuneel, Sr. DR
Section 195Section 234DSection 244ASection 40Section 9

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H. S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 6461 & 6462/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2009-10 and 2010-11) Lease Plan India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. DCIT, Ground Floor, C4C/332, Janakpuri, Circle-4(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Aditya Vohra, Adv Revenue by: Shri Rajat Kumar Kuneel, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 29/01/2020 Date of pronouncement 15/06/2020 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. These are two appeals filed by the assessee against the order of t…

Lease Plan India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 6461/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kuneel, Sr. DR
Section 195Section 234DSection 244ASection 40Section 9

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H. S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 6461 & 6462/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2009-10 and 2010-11) Lease Plan India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. DCIT, Ground Floor, C4C/332, Janakpuri, Circle-4(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Aditya Vohra, Adv Revenue by: Shri Rajat Kumar Kuneel, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 29/01/2020 Date of pronouncement 15/06/2020 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. These are two appeals filed by the assessee against the order of t…

The Director of Income-Tax vs. M/S Sasken Communication

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA/241/2011HC Karnataka10 Jun 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 201Section 201(1)Section 260Section 260ASection 28Section 5(2)

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR I.T.A. NO.241 OF 2011 BETWEEN: 1. THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATIONRASHTROTHANA BHAVANNRUPATHUNGA ROAD,BANGALORE 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER INTERNATIONAL TAXATION,WARD 19 (2)RASHTROTHANA BHAVANNRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE ... APPELLANTS (By SRI.K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.,) AND: M/S SASKEN COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES LTD., NO.139/25, AMARJYOTHI LAYOUT, RING ROAD, BANGALORE ... RE…

Steria (India) Ltd., Noida vs. Addl. CIT, Spl. Range- 8, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6687/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2020AY 2015-16
Section 144CSection 40Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I - 2’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s. Steria (India) Ltd., Add. Commissioner of Income Seaview Special Economic Tax, Zone, Building No. 4, Vs. New Delhi Plot No.20 & 21, Sector-135, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida (UP) PAN–AAACX 0385L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Neeraj Kr. Jain, Adv. Ms. Shaily Gupta, CA Respondent by Sh. H.K.Choudhary, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 07.02.2020 Date of Pronouncement 01.05.2020 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal is preferred…