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 372,388 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

ITO (TDS) (International Taxation), Noida vs. M/S. Computer Science Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., Noida

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue or dismissed

ITA 4546/DEL/2016[2014-15 (F.Y. 2013-14)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Mar 2020

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Satyan Sethi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT/DR
Section 115ASection 201(1)Section 206ASection 90Section 90(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: “B’’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE-PRESIDENT & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 4546 & 4547/Del/2016 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Income-tax Officer(TDS), vs. Computer Science Corporation Noida. India Pvt. Ltd., Noida Towers, Sector-62, Noida. PAN- AABCC5820A (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT/DR Assessee by: Shri Satyan Sethi, Advocate Shri A.T. Panda, Advocate Date of Hearing: 04/03/2020 Date of Pronouncement: 06 /03/2020 ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JM Challenging the orders dated 14/06/201…

Lakshmi Saraswathi Textiles (Ami) Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corp Cir-6(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3384/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganeshआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3384/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Sri Lakshmi Saraswathi The Dy. Commissioner Of Textiles (Arni) Ltd., Income Tax, New # 16, Old # 17, Vs. Corporate Circle-6(2), Krishnama Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aabcs 2312M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mrs. Vijayaprabha, JCITFor Respondent: 25.02.2020
Section 143(3)Section 40

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी महावीर "संह, उपा"य" एवं "ी एम बाला गणेश, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.3384/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Sri Lakshmi Saraswathi The Dy. Commissioner of Textiles (Arni) Ltd., Income Tax, New # 16, Old # 17, Vs. Corporate Circle-6(2), Krishnama Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 034. [PAN: AABCS 2312M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri M. Palanivel, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appel…

Moraj Buildings Concepts P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 10(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4582/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Mr. Pradip Kapasi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Nitin Waghmode, DR
Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 68

…ed that no tax was liable to be deducted at source as per Article 14 of DTAA with UAE on account of payment to non-resident for services rendered outside India and in this regard reliance was placed on the decision in the case of GE India Technology Pvt. Ltd. 327 ITR 456 (SC). Further, it was stated that in any case the amount in question was added to the closing WIP and hence, there would be no addition as such to the income. However, the Ld. CIT(A), after analyzing the factual and legal position held that the claim of Rs.7,50,000/- made by the assessee in the return of income is to be disallowed and added back…

Micro Inks Pvt. Ltd., ( Formerly Known As Micro Inks Ltd.), Vapi vs. The Income Tax Officer, ( Intl. Taxn.), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2707/AHD/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2375/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Income Tax Officer, V Micro Inks Limited, (International Taxation), Surat. S. Bilakhia House, Muktanand Marg, Chala, Vapi – 396 191. [Pan: Aaach 7063 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2707/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Micro Inks Limited, V The Income Tax Officer, Bilakhia House, Muktanand S. (International Taxation), Marg, Chala, Vapi – 396 191. Surat. [Pan: Aaach 7063 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Gopala Krishnan – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupam Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 06.02.2020 उ"घोषणाक"तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 14.02.2020

Section 201Section 5Section 5(2)Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(v)Section 9(1)(vb)

…r pleading that as per the provisions of section 9(l)(v)(b) of the Act the interest paid to non-resident banks do not constitute income in their hands either U/s. 9{l)(v)(b) or U/s. 5(2) of the Act In the case of GE India Technology Centre Pvt Ltd reported in 327 ITR 456 the 6. Honorable Apex Court has held that if the payment to the non-resident do not represent sum chargeable to tax as per the provisions of Income Tax Act 1961, the requirement to withhold tax U/s. 195 is not attracted. Keeping in view of the facts of the case and law we request your honor to consider 7. our pleading that the interest paid to no…

The ITO, (International Taxation), Surat vs. Micro Inks Limited, Vapi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2375/AHD/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2375/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Income Tax Officer, V Micro Inks Limited, (International Taxation), Surat. S. Bilakhia House, Muktanand Marg, Chala, Vapi – 396 191. [Pan: Aaach 7063 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2707/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Micro Inks Limited, V The Income Tax Officer, Bilakhia House, Muktanand S. (International Taxation), Marg, Chala, Vapi – 396 191. Surat. [Pan: Aaach 7063 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Gopala Krishnan – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupam Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 06.02.2020 उ"घोषणाक"तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 14.02.2020

Section 201Section 5Section 5(2)Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(v)Section 9(1)(vb)

…r pleading that as per the provisions of section 9(l)(v)(b) of the Act the interest paid to non-resident banks do not constitute income in their hands either U/s. 9{l)(v)(b) or U/s. 5(2) of the Act In the case of GE India Technology Centre Pvt Ltd reported in 327 ITR 456 the 6. Honorable Apex Court has held that if the payment to the non-resident do not represent sum chargeable to tax as per the provisions of Income Tax Act 1961, the requirement to withhold tax U/s. 195 is not attracted. Keeping in view of the facts of the case and law we request your honor to consider 7. our pleading that the interest paid to no…

DCIT- 11 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 361/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd., V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax 3Rd Floor, The Leela Galleria Circle – 11(3)(1) Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400 059 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaace2175M (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd., 3Rd Floor, The Leela Galleria Circle – 11(3)(1) Room No. 204, 2Nd Floor Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 059 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaace2175M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh
Section 195Section 234DSection 244ASection 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd., v. Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax 3rd Floor, The Leela Galleria Circle – 11(3)(1) Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400 059 Mumbai – 400 020 PAN: AAACE2175M (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax v. M/s. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd., 3rd Floor, The Leela Galleria Circle – 11(3)(1) Room No. 204, 2nd Floor Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 059 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.…

Total Oil India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 11(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 245/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd., V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax 3Rd Floor, The Leela Galleria Circle – 11(3)(1) Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400 059 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaace2175M (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd., 3Rd Floor, The Leela Galleria Circle – 11(3)(1) Room No. 204, 2Nd Floor Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 059 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaace2175M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh
Section 195Section 234DSection 244ASection 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd., v. Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax 3rd Floor, The Leela Galleria Circle – 11(3)(1) Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400 059 Mumbai – 400 020 PAN: AAACE2175M (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax v. M/s. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd., 3rd Floor, The Leela Galleria Circle – 11(3)(1) Room No. 204, 2nd Floor Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 059 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.…

ACIT Cir 11(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Total Oil India P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2128/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Avaneesh Tiwari
Section 195Section 234DSection 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “I”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 1877 & 1878/MUM/2018 (A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/s. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd., v. Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax Circle – 11(3)(1) 3rd Floor, The Leela Galleria Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 059 PAN: AAACE2175M (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos. 2127 & 2128/MUM/2018 (A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2013-14) Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax v. M/s. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 11(3)(1) 3rd F…

Asst CIT Range 11(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Total Oil India P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2127/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Avaneesh Tiwari
Section 195Section 234DSection 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “I”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 1877 & 1878/MUM/2018 (A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/s. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd., v. Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax Circle – 11(3)(1) 3rd Floor, The Leela Galleria Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 059 PAN: AAACE2175M (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos. 2127 & 2128/MUM/2018 (A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2013-14) Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax v. M/s. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 11(3)(1) 3rd F…

Total Oil India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 11(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1878/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Avaneesh Tiwari
Section 195Section 234DSection 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “I”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 1877 & 1878/MUM/2018 (A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/s. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd., v. Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax Circle – 11(3)(1) 3rd Floor, The Leela Galleria Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 059 PAN: AAACE2175M (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos. 2127 & 2128/MUM/2018 (A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2013-14) Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax v. M/s. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 11(3)(1) 3rd F…

Total Oil India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 11(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1877/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Avaneesh Tiwari
Section 195Section 234DSection 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “I”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 1877 & 1878/MUM/2018 (A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/s. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd., v. Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax Circle – 11(3)(1) 3rd Floor, The Leela Galleria Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 059 PAN: AAACE2175M (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos. 2127 & 2128/MUM/2018 (A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2013-14) Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax v. M/s. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 11(3)(1) 3rd F…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Frontier Offshore Exploration (India) Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1006/CHNY/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jan 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1006/Chny/2016 धनिाजरण वर्ज Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Mr. A. Sundararajan, Addl.CITFor Respondent: None
Section 44B

…his finding. In respect of the finding of the learned CIT(A) that no TDS was liable to be deducted by applying the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 327 ITR 456 as also the decision in the case of Vodafone International Holdings B.V vs. Union of India reported in 341 ITR 1 the revenue is in appeal. 5. The learned Department Representative submitted that the provision of Section 44BB applied. It was a submission that the issue was now squarely covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of :- 4 -: t…

Shree Krishna Goswami, Kolkata vs. Principal CIT - 2, Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1097/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.1097/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shree Krishna Goswami Vs. Pr. Cit -2, Kolkata C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, 2Nd Floor, Suite213, Kolkata – 700069. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aeopg4309Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Nayak, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 194CSection 263Section 263(1)Section 40

…nder section 195(2) in case of payments to non-residents and assessee's failure to do so is to be visited with consequences for non-deduction at source, the law is now settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd Vs CIT (327 ITR 456) wherein Their Lordships have categorically held that, " where a person responsible for deduction is fairly certain, then he can make his own determination as to whether the tax was deductible at source and, if so, what should be the amount thereof ". The plea of the revenue authorities to the effect that where the assessee does not move an appli…

D.C.I.T., Circle-2(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Shalimar Wires Industries Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1354/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 5(2)(b)Section 9(1)

…rder 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 Pvt Ltd Vs CIT [(2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC)], 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 resident agents are not taxa…

J.P Tobaco Products Pvt. Ltd vs. Dy. Comissioner of Income Tax(TDS)

In the result, the assessee‘s appeals are allowed

ITA 156/JAB/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Sanjay Arora

Section 195Section 195(1)Section 195(2)Section 201Section 201(1)

…the commission paid I.T.A. No.155 & 156/JAB/2015 2 by it to its‘ intending agent, Sh.Ketan Malhotra, a resident of Canada. The assessee‘s case, claimed before us as covered by the Hon‘ble Apex Court in G.E. India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT [2010] 327 ITR 456 (SC), as well as the Board‘s Circular No.786 dated 07/02/2000 (PB page 16), is that s. 195(1) is not applicable as no part of the said commission was chargeable to tax under the Act in as much as no services were rendered by him in India. The Revenue‘s case, on the other hand, is that the obligation for deduction of tax at source u/s. 195(1) is,…

J.P Tobaco Products Pvt. Ltd vs. Dy. Comissioner of Income Tax(TDS)

In the result, the assessee‘s appeals are allowed

ITA 155/JAB/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Sanjay Arora

Section 195Section 195(1)Section 195(2)Section 201Section 201(1)

…the commission paid I.T.A. No.155 & 156/JAB/2015 2 by it to its‘ intending agent, Sh.Ketan Malhotra, a resident of Canada. The assessee‘s case, claimed before us as covered by the Hon‘ble Apex Court in G.E. India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT [2010] 327 ITR 456 (SC), as well as the Board‘s Circular No.786 dated 07/02/2000 (PB page 16), is that s. 195(1) is not applicable as no part of the said commission was chargeable to tax under the Act in as much as no services were rendered by him in India. The Revenue‘s case, on the other hand, is that the obligation for deduction of tax at source u/s. 195(1) is,…

Standard Chartered Securities (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed, in the terms indicated above

ITA 1859/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: A Coordinate Bench Of This Tribunal, The Matter Was Remanded Back To The File Of The Cit(A) By Observing As Follows:-

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

…nts are not covered by TDS provisions but only decided the issue on the basis of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Samsung Electronics 320 ITR 209. It was submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre (P) Ltd 327 ITR 456 reversed the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court (supra) and held that the expression “chargeable under the provisions of the Act” in section 195(1) shows that the remittance has got to be of trading receipts, the whole or part of it is liable to tax in India. If tax is not so assessable, there is no question of tax at source being deduc…

M/S. El Measure India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 760/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai, Judical Member

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Narasimha Raju, JCIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 195(1)Section 195(2)Section 234BSection 234CSection 40Section 40a

…ncome which is taxable in India. 7. We have perused submissions advanced by both sides in light of records placed before us. 7.1 Ld.AR placed reliance upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of GE India Technology Cen. (P) Ltd vs CIT reported in (2010) 193 Taxmann 234. Hon’ble Supreme Court had analysed identical issue wherein Hon’ble court observed that: “The most important expression in section 195 (1) 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 ITAA No.760(B)/2019 7 if such item is not charg…

S N Builders & Developers, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee- company is allowed

ITA 106/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. S.N.Builders & Developers, No.4, 2Nd Floor, Elephant Rock Road, Above Kalayan Jewellers, Jayanagar 3Rd Block, Bengaluru-560 011. Pan: Abefs 8850 P … Appellant Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 4(3)(1), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant By : Smt. Suman Lunkar, Ca. Respondent By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 07/11/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 27/11/2019 O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm : The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Bangalore-9, Bangalore, Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short].

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 40Section 80Section 80I

…liability to deduct tax at source arises only when there is accrual of income in the hands of the payee. We are holding so, keeping in view the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s GE India Technology Centre P. Ltd. Vs. CIT and another 327 ITR 456 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that if payment is not assessable to tax there is no question of tax at source being deducted. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under :- “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 obliter…

DCIT, Ltu(Appeal)-1, Chennai vs. Turbo Energy Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 313/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 10BSection 14ASection 2Section 35Section 40Section 43BSection 80I

…f Sec.9(1)(vii) and Sec.195 has no application. The assessee also relied on the following decisions:  Brakes India Ltd. V. DCIT (LTU) (266/Mds/2012) (Chennai)  Sun Micro Systems India (P) Ltd (125 ITD 196) (Bang)  G.E. Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd., Vs. CIT (327 ITR 456) ITA No.190-193 & 310 - 313/Chny/2018 8.2 We heard the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record. The assessee has produced the copy of the agreement before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) examined the Explanation of the assessee and the document placed before the CIT and concluded that the services rendered by the non-resident d…