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 372,250 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

Timex Group India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addi. CIT Spl.Range-9, New Delhi

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

ITA 7526/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2013-14] M/S Timex Group India Ltd. Additional Commissioner Of Income 106-107, Ambadeep Building, Tax, Special Range-9, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, Vs New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110001 Pan-Aaact0773C Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2013-14] Additional Commissioner Of M/S Timex Group India Ltd. Income Tax, Special Range-9, 106-107, Ambadeep Building, New Delhi-110002 Vs Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Aaact0773C Revenue Assessee Assessee By Shri Tushar Jarwal, Adv. Shri Aayush Nagpal, Adv. & Shri Vikrant Maheshwari, Adv. Revenue By Shri Rohit Garg, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 01.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26.09.2025

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 92Section 92BSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘D’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2013-14] M/s Timex Group India Ltd. Additional Commissioner of Income 106-107, Ambadeep Building, Tax, Special Range-9, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, Vs New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110001 PAN-AAACT0773C Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2013-14] Additional Commissioner of M/s Timex Group India Ltd. Income Tax, Special Range-9, 106-107, Ambadeep Building, New Delhi-110002 Vs Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 PAN-AAACT0773C Revenue Assessee Assesse…

Dhritiman Roy, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 542/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 234CSection 250Section 90

…ITA No.542/Bang/2025 Shri Dhritiman Roy IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 542/ Bang /2025 Assessment Year : 2019-20 Shri Dhritiman Roy 1989, Mcechs Layout 2nd Phase, 2nd Cross Income Tax Officer Dr. SRK Nagar, Ward – 4(2)(1) Vs. Bangalore – 560064 Bangalore Karnataka PAN NO : BPDPR5486L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri S.P. Chidambaram, AR Department by : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue Date of Hearing : 17.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 11.09.2025 O R D E R PER…

M/S.Apollo Tyres Ltd, Cochin vs. The Principal Commissioner of Incometax, Cochin

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 609/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Apollo Tyres Ltd. .......... Appellant 3Rd Floor, Areekal Mansion, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi 682036 [Pan: Aaaca6990Q] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, Adv. Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)Section 35Section 43(1)Section 92C

…tion to deduct tax at source on reimbursement of expenditure as the same fall under the category of ‘fees for technical services’ and also placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT 327 ITR 456 and also in the case of Transmission Corporation of AP Ltd. v. CIT 239 ITR 587. vii. The AO disallowed the claim made in the return of income on account of loss of unrealised foreign exchange rate fluctuation on capital assets. It is stated that during the previous year relevant to AY 2012-13, the loss on unrealised foreign exchange rate fluctuat…

The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Cir.-3(1), Rajkot-Gujarat vs. M/S. Sonpal Exports Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 29/RJT/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 29/Rjt/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) The Dcit, Circle – 3(1), Vs. M/S. Sonpal Exports Pvt. Ltd. Rajkot Aayakar Bhavan, Room Dhari Bagsara Road, Nr. Ice No. 114, 1St Floor, Race Course Factory, Amreli Ring Road, Rajkot Pan No.: Aajcs0177N (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Praveen Verma, Ld. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 24/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am; By Way Of This Appeal, The Revenue, Has Challenged Correctness Of The Order Dated 16.11.2017, Passed By The Learned Cit(A), In The Matter Of Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. Grievances Raised By The Revenue, Which Are Interconnected & Will Be Taken Up Together, Are As Follows: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 13,96,33,023/- Holding That Provision Of Section 195 Will Not Be Applicable. 2. On The Facts Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Erred In Ignoring The Facts That The Assessee Has Failed To Prove The Genuineness Of Foreign Commission Expenses Before The A.O. 3. It Is, Therefore, Prayed That The Order Of The C.I.T. (A) May Be Set Aside & That Of The A.O. Be Restored To The Above Extent. Dcit Vs. M/S. Sonpal Export Pvt. Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Verma, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195

…a and hence will not be chargeable to tax in India failing which the provisions of section 195 will not be applicable to the assessee. Further reliance was placed by the assessee on the following decisions: (i)GE India Technology Centre (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (SC) 327 ITR 456 (ii)CIT vs. EON Technology (P) (Ltd) 343 ITR 366 (Delhi HC) (iii)DCIT VS. Divi's Laboratories Ltd. (2011)131 ITD 271 (Hyderabad) (iv)DCIT vs. Angelique International (2013) 55 SOT 226 (Delhi) (v)Adidas Sourcing Limited 150 TTJ 801 (DELHI) (vi)SPAHI Projects Pvt. Ltd., 183 Taxman 92 (AAR) (vii)Linde A.G. vs Income Tax Officer 62 ITD 330 (Mum.) 201…

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

ITA 600/DEL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Tanya Sharma, Sr. Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 40

…, tax is required to be withheld in respect of payments made to a non-resident only if such payment is chargeable to tax in India. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre (P) Ltd vs CIT: 327 ITR 456 (SC) and Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd vs CIT: 432 ITR 471 (SC); Van Oord ACZ India (P) Ltd vs CIT: 323 ITR 130 (Del); Estel Communications (P) Ltd: 217 CTR 102 (Del); CIT vs ICL Shipping Ltd: 315 ITR 195 (Mad); Jindal Thermal 5 Power: 182 Taxman 252 (Kar) – SLP of department dismissed in 196 Taxman 495 (SC). 6. In this rega…

Subramaniam Hariharan, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-63(1), New Delhi

ITA 9832/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 40

…, tax is required to be withheld in respect of payments made to a non-resident only if such payment is chargeable to tax in India. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre (P) Ltd vs CIT: 327 ITR 456 (SC) and Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd vs CIT: 432 ITR 471 (SC); Van Oord ACZ India (P) Ltd vs CIT: 323 ITR 130 (Del); Estel Communications (P) Ltd: 217 CTR 102 (Del); CIT vs ICL Shipping Ltd: 315 ITR 195 (Mad); Jindal Thermal 5 ITAs No.600/Del/2020, 9832/Del/2019 & 2134/Del/2018 Power: 182 Taxman 252 (Kar) – SLP of department…

Anand and Anand, New Delhi vs. JCIT, Range- 37, New Delhi

ITA 2134/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 40

…, tax is required to be withheld in respect of payments made to a non-resident only if such payment is chargeable to tax in India. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre (P) Ltd vs CIT: 327 ITR 456 (SC) and Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd vs CIT: 432 ITR 471 (SC); Van Oord ACZ India (P) Ltd vs CIT: 323 ITR 130 (Del); Estel Communications (P) Ltd: 217 CTR 102 (Del); CIT vs ICL Shipping Ltd: 315 ITR 195 (Mad); Jindal Thermal 5 Power: 182 Taxman 252 (Kar) – SLP of department dismissed in 196 Taxman 495 (SC). 6. In this regard…

Te Connectivity Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT Circle, 7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1887/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: S/Shri Sriram Sheshadri & Vinay Jain, CAsFor Respondent: Smt. Suganthamala T M, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 144CSection 40Section 92C

…nt of ESOP is mentioned and is matching. Thus it is proved that it is on cost to cost basis. It is thus clear that there is no income element involved in those payments. The mandate of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd., 327 ITR 456 is that if there is no element of income in the payment made which is chargeable tot tax u/s. 45 & 9 of the Act, no withholding tax requirement is hit. In the present case, it is shown before us that it is a reimbursement at cost to cost. Thus, we find that there could not have been any disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act. In view of this, we d…

Manisha Kiran Temkar, Mumbai vs. ACIT -21(2), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are

ITA 674/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 195Section 250Section 254(1)Section 40Section 90(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER& MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 673/MUM/2025 (AY: 2014-15) (Physical hearing) Manisha Kiran Temkar ACIT – 21(2), Mumbai 32, Vinod Villa, Worli Hill Road, Worli, Vs Piramal Chamber, Lal Baug, Mumbai – 400018. Parel, Mumbai – 400012. [PAN: ABSPT7644J] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Ms. Kinjal Bhuta, Advocate Revenue by Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr. DR Date of hearing 10.07.2025 Date of pronouncement 18.08.2025 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEM…

Manish Kiran Temkar, Mumbai vs. ACIT-21(2), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are

ITA 673/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 195Section 250Section 254(1)Section 40Section 90(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER& MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 673/MUM/2025 (AY: 2014-15) (Physical hearing) Manisha Kiran Temkar ACIT – 21(2), Mumbai 32, Vinod Villa, Worli Hill Road, Worli, Vs Piramal Chamber, Lal Baug, Mumbai – 400018. Parel, Mumbai – 400012. [PAN: ABSPT7644J] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Ms. Kinjal Bhuta, Advocate Revenue by Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr. DR Date of hearing 10.07.2025 Date of pronouncement 18.08.2025 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEM…

Shri. Vikram Dhondu Rao, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2558/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234BSection 244ASection 250Section 44ASection 90

…ITA No.2557 & 2558/Bang/2024 Mr. Vikram Dhondu Rao, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.2557 & 2558/Bang/2024 Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 Mr. Vikram Dhondu Rao Villa 112, Adarsh Plam Retreat Outer Ring Road Bellandur Post DCIT Vs. Devarabeesanahalli Circle-4(1)(1) Bangalore 560 037 Bangalore PAN NO :AANPR3719C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Sri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.R. Respondent by : Sri Subramanian, D.R. Date of Hearing : 14.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 11.08.2025 O R D E…

Sumukh Suresh Bhardwaj, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 935/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Veerabasanagouda, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate for Standing
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 90

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘SMC’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2019-20 Sumukh Suresh Bhardwaj, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 294, 17th Main 35th Cross, Ward - 7(2)(1), Jayanagar 4th T – Block, Bengaluru Bengalur – 560 041. . PAN – AYKPB 8659 A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Veerabasanagouda, CA Revenue by : Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate for Standing Counsel Date of hearing : 25.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 10.07.2025 O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This is an appeal filed by the assessee…

ACIT, Ltu-2, Chennai vs. Ashok Leyland Limited, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2618/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक सद" एवं एवं एवं एवं "ी अिमताभ शु"ा, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2330/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 v. M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd., The ACIT, 1, Sardar Patel Road, Large Taxpayer Unit-2, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. Chennai. [PAN: AAACA 4651 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2618/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 v. The ACIT, M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd.…

ACIT, Circle Ltu-1, Chennai vs. Carborundum Universal Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 140/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos. 139, 140 & 117/Chny/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2018-19)

For Appellant: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan
Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40

…India, as per the provisions of the law. We also invite your attention to Circular 786 of 2000 and Circular No.23 dated 23.07.1969, wherein it is clearly stated that the Commission paid to overseas agents are not chargeable to Tax in India. GE India vs. CIT [327 ITR 456] DCIT vs. M/s. Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Limited (ITAT Chennai) [No.ITA Nos: 879, 880, 881, 882, 1254, 1255, 1256/Chny/2017, 1257, 1258 & 1259/Chny/2017], the Honourable ITAT We also place reliance on the following judgements: a) The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Sesa Goa Ltd (Bombay High Court) [ITA No.68 of 2016], - 10 - ITA…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Ltu-1, Chennai vs. Carborundum Universal Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 139/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos. 139, 140 & 117/Chny/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2018-19)

For Appellant: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan
Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40

…India, as per the provisions of the law. We also invite your attention to Circular 786 of 2000 and Circular No.23 dated 23.07.1969, wherein it is clearly stated that the Commission paid to overseas agents are not chargeable to Tax in India. GE India vs. CIT [327 ITR 456] DCIT vs. M/s. Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Limited (ITAT Chennai) [No.ITA Nos: 879, 880, 881, 882, 1254, 1255, 1256/Chny/2017, 1257, 1258 & 1259/Chny/2017], the Honourable ITAT We also place reliance on the following judgements: a) The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Sesa Goa Ltd (Bombay High Court) [ITA No.68 of 2016], - 10 - ITA…

ACIT, Ltu Circle 1 Chennai, Chennai vs. Carborundum Universal Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 117/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos. 139, 140 & 117/Chny/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2018-19)

For Appellant: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan
Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40

…India, as per the provisions of the law. We also invite your attention to Circular 786 of 2000 and Circular No.23 dated 23.07.1969, wherein it is clearly stated that the Commission paid to overseas agents are not chargeable to Tax in India. GE India vs. CIT [327 ITR 456] DCIT vs. M/s. Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Limited (ITAT Chennai) [No.ITA Nos: 879, 880, 881, 882, 1254, 1255, 1256/Chny/2017, 1257, 1258 & 1259/Chny/2017], the Honourable ITAT We also place reliance on the following judgements: a) The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Sesa Goa Ltd (Bombay High Court) [ITA No.68 of 2016], - 10 - ITA…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon vs. Hays Business Solutions Private Limited, Gurgaon

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3003/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195(1)Section 250Section 37Section 40

…above, the Assessee is not required to withhold tax on payment of management fee which is not chargeable to tax in India. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of GE India Technology Centre Private Limited vs CIT (327 ITR 456) wherein it has been held that tax is required to be withheld in case payment is chargeable to tax in India. Our contention also gets support from the Instruction No. 2/2014, Circular 3 of 2015 and F. No. 500/39/2015 dated 26 October 2016 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT).  It is also submitted that the Ld. AO has failed to consider…

The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 281/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vejalpur Vs Corporate House Ahmedabad. S.G. Highway Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L Asstt.Year : 2015-16 M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Corporate House Vs Vejalpur S.G. Highway Ahmedabad. Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocae & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Shri Ragnesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 35Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 92C

…cal Industries Ltd. [(2020) 422 ITR 449 (Guj)], where identical payments to foreign agents for export facilitation were held to be outside the scope of income deemed to accrue or arise in India. Similarly, in GE India Technology Centre (P) Ltd. v. CIT [(2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC)], the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the obligation under section 195 arises only if the payment is chargeable to tax in India. 105. We further note that the Revenue has not brought any material on record to establish that the agents had a business connection in India within the meaning of section 9(1)(i), or that services were rendered in In…

Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 222/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vejalpur Vs Corporate House Ahmedabad. S.G. Highway Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L Asstt.Year : 2015-16 M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Corporate House Vs Vejalpur S.G. Highway Ahmedabad. Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocae & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Shri Ragnesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 35Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 92C

…cal Industries Ltd. [(2020) 422 ITR 449 (Guj)], where identical payments to foreign agents for export facilitation were held to be outside the scope of income deemed to accrue or arise in India. Similarly, in GE India Technology Centre (P) Ltd. v. CIT [(2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC)], the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the obligation under section 195 arises only if the payment is chargeable to tax in India. 105. We further note that the Revenue has not brought any material on record to establish that the agents had a business connection in India within the meaning of section 9(1)(i), or that services were rendered in In…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 1262/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon'Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1193, 1194, 1205, 1206 & 1207/Chny/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Cognizant Technology Solutions Vs The Asst. Commissioner India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, No.5/535, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Central Circle 1(1), Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai. Chennai - 600 096. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Pan: Aaacd 3312M (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1262, 1263, 1264, 1265 & 1266/Chny/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs Cognizant Technology Income Tax, Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle 1(1), No.5/535, Okkiam Chennai. Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai - 600 096. Pan: Aaacd 3312M (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निधारिती की ओर से/Assessee By राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit & Ms. Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025 - 2 -

For Respondent: Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate
Section 10ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

…liability of the recipient of income under the Act, no liability for withholding of tax can be imposed on the deductor Company. Reference in this regard was made to Apex Court judgement in the case of GE India Technology Centre Private Ltd. vs. CIT(A) [2010] 327 ITR 456 (SC) - The services rendered by the non-resident vendors would fall within the purview of the exclusionary clause provided in section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act, as the payments made by the assessee (a resident) are utilized to earn income from a source outside India as the Company is an exporter of computer software and related services. Reliance i…