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.

How many judgments cite GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT?

663 judgments on BharatTax cite GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (327 ITR 456), spanning 2013 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 195, Section 40(a)(i), Section 40(a)(ia), Section 143(3), Section 115JB, Section 201(1A).

GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (327 ITR 456)

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 312/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

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…

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 311/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

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…

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 310/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

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…

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 193/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…

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 192/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

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…

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 191/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

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…

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 190/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

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…

K Patel Chemo Pharma Private Limited, Ankleshwar vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is allowed

ITA 2914/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2914 & 2915/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R

Section 195Section 37(1)Section 40

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘B’ अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2914 & 2915/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15) K Patel Chemo Pharma Assistant / Deputy बनाम/ Private Limited Commissioner of Income Vs. 155, G.I.D.C. Estate, Tax Ankleshwar 393002 Circle 2(1)(2), Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AABCK1320M .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri Surendra Modiani, A.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant by : Shri…

S. Kumars Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 4501/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr. Ashok J. Patil, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Nitin Waghmode, DR

Section 115JSection 143Section 194CSection 194ISection 201Section 40

…that it is not the Department’s contentions that the payments were made to non-residents and the income had no connection with services rendered in India. In this regard reliance is placed by him on the decision in GE India Technology Centre (P.) Ltd. v. CIT 327 ITR 456 SC, ACIT v. NGC Network (I) Pvt. Ltd. 1382/M/2014 and Channel Guide India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT 153 TTJ (Mum) 432. M/s S. Kumars Ltd. On the other hand, the Ld. DR relies on the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). 9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the relevant materials on record. In the case of GE India Technology Centre (P.) Ltd. (sup…

S. Kumars Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 4(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 4500/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr. Ashok J. Patil, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Nitin Waghmode, DR

Section 115JSection 143Section 194CSection 194ISection 201Section 40

…that it is not the Department’s contentions that the payments were made to non-residents and the income had no connection with services rendered in India. In this regard reliance is placed by him on the decision in GE India Technology Centre (P.) Ltd. v. CIT 327 ITR 456 SC, ACIT v. NGC Network (I) Pvt. Ltd. 1382/M/2014 and Channel Guide India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT 153 TTJ (Mum) 432. M/s S. Kumars Ltd. On the other hand, the Ld. DR relies on the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). 9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the relevant materials on record. In the case of GE India Technology Centre (P.) Ltd. (sup…

Thy ACIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M & B Engineering Limited, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 370/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr. D.R

Section 195Section 195(2)Section 40Section 5Section 5(2)(b)Section 9Section 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(vii)

…o property through or from which the income has been earned. Therefore, the provisions of section 9 (1)(i) also cannot be applied. 2.14. 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. 115 TTJ 916. ITA No.370/Ahd/18 [ACIT vs. M & B Engineering Limited] A.Y. 2013-14 - 6 - 2.15. Therefore, in view of the preceding discussion the AO was not justified to hold that the commission payable to the overseas agent was doomed to accrue or arise…

Sodexo Svc India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS)-2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 933/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sodexo Svc India Pvt. Ltd., Assistant/Deputy 503 & 504, 5Th Floor, B Wing, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Hiranandani Fulcrum, Sahar Tax (Tds)-2(2), 717, Smt. Road, Andheri East, Mumbai. K.G. Mittal Ayurvedic Hospital Bldg., Charni Road (W), Mumbai. Pan No. Aalcs9822Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. F.B. Andhyarujina, Mr. Gautam Thacker, Mr. Yazdi P. Jijina & Ms. K.R. Daviervala, Ars Revenue By : Mr. B.B. Rajendra Prasad, Cit-Dr Last Date Of Hearing : 12/07/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/10/2019

For Appellant: Mr. F.B. AndhyarujinaFor Respondent: Mr. B.B. Rajendra Prasad, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 7

…ment of the face value of the vouchers made by the appellant to Sodexo SVC India Pvt. Ltd. the affiliates, the Ld. counsel rely on the decision in Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation v. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 309 (SC), GE India Technology Centre P. Ltd. v. CIT [2010] 327 ITR 456 (SC), DIT (Int. Tax.) v. A.P. Moller Maersk A/S [2017] 392 ITR 186 (SC), CIT v. Industrial Engineering Projects P. Ltd. [1993] 202 ITR 1014 (Del), CIT v. DLF Commercial Projects Corporation [2015] 379 ITR 538 (Del), ADIT (IT) v. Wizcraft International Entertainment P. Ltd. [2011] 8 ITR (Trib) 334 (Mum) . Further reliance is placed by the Ld. coun…

M/S. Electrosteel Casting Limited., Kolkata vs. ITO (International Taxation) Ward, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 140/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

Section 133(6)Section 201(1)Section 250Section 9(1)(vii)Section 9(2)

…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…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore vs. M/S Infosys Bpo Ltd, Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1333/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt.Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Miss. Neera Malhotra, CIT, DR

Section 10ASection 14ASection 40

…2006-07 relevant to AY 2007-08. He submitted that decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in CIT v Samsung Electronics Co Ltd reported in [2010] 320 ITR 209 was set aside by Hon’ble Supreme Court in GE India Technology Centre (P) Ltd v CIT reported in [2010] 327 ITR 456. And that, subsequently, vide another decision in CIT v Samsung Electronics Co Ltd reported in [2012] 345 ITR 494, it was held by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court that software payments are in the nature of 'royalty' and hence liable for TDS. Independently, Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in CIT v Synopsys International Old Ltd reported in 28 taxman…

M/S. Shillong Lojong Football Club (P) Ltd., Shillong vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - Shillong, Shillong

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 53/GTY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati25 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

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

Section 10(26)Section 143(3)Section 197Section 40

…ecided on 08.03.2018 holds that the impugned disallowance does not apply in case of the payees/recipients enjoying exemption u/s. 10(26) of the Act. Learned co- ordinate bench quotes in GE India Technology Centre (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC) holding long back that liability to deduct TDS is attracted only if the amount in question is income of ITA No.53/Gau/2017 A.Y. 2013-14 M/s Shillong Lajong Football Club (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT, Cir-Shill Page 3 the recipient concerned. This tribunal’s another decision in Tamchikusuk vs. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Range, Tezpur, Assam…

M/S. Vishay Components India Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 500/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.500/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Ms. Amrita Misra, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…voices along with copies of invoices attached therein. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee stressed that the Assessing Officer in the draft assessment order had referred to the decision of GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC), but there is no discussion on reimbursement of cost in the said decision. Referring to the order of Assessing Officer, wherein he has concluded by holding the said payment to be in the nature of royalty and application of Article 12 of DTAA, the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that before applying the said pro…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, (It) -Circle -1, Pune vs. Koso India Pvt.Ltd, Nashik

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1650/PUN/2017[2016-17 (27Q-Q4)]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Sept 2019

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1650/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Shashank DeogadkarFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Shah

Section 200ASection 201Section 206ASection 90(2)

…78 Taxman 505 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 Center (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2010] 327 ITR 456/ 193 Taxman 234/7 taxmann.com 18 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…

Bimetal Bearings Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year

ITA 671/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 668, 669, 670 & 671/Chny/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2007-08 To 2010-11 M/S. Bimetal Bearings Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of 18, Race Course Road, Vs. Income Tax, Large Taxpayer Unit, Coimbatore 641 018. 1775, Jawaharlal Nehru Inner Ring Road, Anna Nagar Western Extension, [Pan:Aaacb2036Q] Chennai 600 101. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 17, Chennai All Dated 30.01.2015 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11. Since Common Issues Have Been Raised In These Appeals, Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity.

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT

Section 14ASection 40

…aid outside India in the instant case are not falling under either royalty, interest or fee for technical services, therefore they are not chargeable to tax in India. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G.E. India Technology Centre P Ltd, 327 ITR 456 (SC) (2010) comes to the rescue of the appellant. Furthermore, my Id. predecessor has allowed such claim in his order vide ITA No. 523/06-07/A. III dated 14.7.2010 in the case of another group concern I.P. Rings Ltd for A.Y. 99-2000 for similar payments made to Amalgamations P Ltd. In view of the above discussion, the disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) is…

Bimetal Bearings Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year

ITA 670/CHNY/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 668, 669, 670 & 671/Chny/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2007-08 To 2010-11 M/S. Bimetal Bearings Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of 18, Race Course Road, Vs. Income Tax, Large Taxpayer Unit, Coimbatore 641 018. 1775, Jawaharlal Nehru Inner Ring Road, Anna Nagar Western Extension, [Pan:Aaacb2036Q] Chennai 600 101. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 17, Chennai All Dated 30.01.2015 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11. Since Common Issues Have Been Raised In These Appeals, Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity.

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT

Section 14ASection 40

…aid outside India in the instant case are not falling under either royalty, interest or fee for technical services, therefore they are not chargeable to tax in India. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G.E. India Technology Centre P Ltd, 327 ITR 456 (SC) (2010) comes to the rescue of the appellant. Furthermore, my Id. predecessor has allowed such claim in his order vide ITA No. 523/06-07/A. III dated 14.7.2010 in the case of another group concern I.P. Rings Ltd for A.Y. 99-2000 for similar payments made to Amalgamations P Ltd. In view of the above discussion, the disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) is…

Bimetal Bearings Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year

ITA 669/CHNY/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 668, 669, 670 & 671/Chny/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2007-08 To 2010-11 M/S. Bimetal Bearings Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of 18, Race Course Road, Vs. Income Tax, Large Taxpayer Unit, Coimbatore 641 018. 1775, Jawaharlal Nehru Inner Ring Road, Anna Nagar Western Extension, [Pan:Aaacb2036Q] Chennai 600 101. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 17, Chennai All Dated 30.01.2015 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11. Since Common Issues Have Been Raised In These Appeals, Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity.

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT

Section 14ASection 40

…aid outside India in the instant case are not falling under either royalty, interest or fee for technical services, therefore they are not chargeable to tax in India. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G.E. India Technology Centre P Ltd, 327 ITR 456 (SC) (2010) comes to the rescue of the appellant. Furthermore, my Id. predecessor has allowed such claim in his order vide ITA No. 523/06-07/A. III dated 14.7.2010 in the case of another group concern I.P. Rings Ltd for A.Y. 99-2000 for similar payments made to Amalgamations P Ltd. In view of the above discussion, the disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) is…

GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

What is GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

K Patel Chemo Pharma Private Limited, Ankleshwar vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

S. Kumars Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(3), Mumbai

S. Kumars Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 4(3)(4), Mumbai

Thy ACIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M & B Engineering Limited, Ahmedabad

Sodexo Svc India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS)-2(2), Mumbai

M/S. Electrosteel Casting Limited., Kolkata vs. ITO (International Taxation) Ward, Kolkata

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore vs. M/S Infosys Bpo Ltd, Bangalore

M/S. Shillong Lojong Football Club (P) Ltd., Shillong vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - Shillong, Shillong

M/S. Vishay Components India Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, (It) -Circle -1, Pune vs. Koso India Pvt.Ltd, Nashik

Bimetal Bearings Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

Bimetal Bearings Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

Bimetal Bearings Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai