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 372,373 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

M/S Sahasra Electronics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result appeals of the assessee for both the years are allowed

ITA 1189/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 195Section 4Section 40Section 9

…the ground of the assessee company not complying with the provisions of the withholding tax, but in appeal Ld. CIT(A) had deleted the addition relying on the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of GE India technology Centre private limited vs. CIT 327 ITR 456 (SC), wherein it was held that section 195 of the Act has to be read in conformity with the charging provisions, that is, section 4, 5 and 9 of the Act and that the obligation to deduct TDS arises only when there is a sum chargeable to tax. 5. Learned Assessing Officer further recorded that for the Assessment year 2009-10, Ld. CIT(A) vide order…

Metalind Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1242/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 1241/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 & I.T.A. No. 1242/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Metalind Private Ltd...........……………………………………....…………………………………………Appellant 51, Canal East Road Kolkata – 700 085 [Pan : Aaccm 2883 J] Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Kolkata.......…..…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri A.K. Singh, Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 12Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 10Th , 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- Both These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1, Kolkata, (Ld. Pr. Cit) Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (The ‘Act’), Both Dt. 22/03/2017, For The Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2. Both These Appeals Belong To The Same Assessee. Hence For The Sake Of Convenience, They Are Heard Together & Disposed Off By Way Of This Common Order. 3. The Assessee Is A Company & Is In The Business Of Real Estate & Related Activities. It Filed Its Original Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2011-12 On 29/09/2011, Declaring Nil Income & For The Assessment Year 2012-13 On 29/09/2012, Declaring Total Income Of Rs.5,48,59,970/-. A Search & Seizure Operation Was Conducted U/S 132 Of The Act On The Assessee On 04/10/2012. Consequentially Notice U/S 153A Of The Act, Were Issued & The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income In Response Thereto Declaring The Same Income As That Disclosed By It In The Original Return Of Income For Both The Assessment Years. The Assessing

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 40

…the assessee that the payment in question is reimbursement of expenditure to its joint-venture partner, and hence no TDS needs to be made. According to the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of G.E. India Technology Centre vs. CIT reported in 327 ITR 456 (SC) held that when there is no element of income in the remittance, no deduction of ta at source need be made. In the case on hand when both the parties are assessed by the same assessing officer under the ld. Pr. CIT’s jurisdiction, come enquiry had to be made. By not doing so, the ld. Pr. CIT has, in our opinion, not come to a conclusion as to…

Metalind Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1241/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 1241/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 & I.T.A. No. 1242/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Metalind Private Ltd...........……………………………………....…………………………………………Appellant 51, Canal East Road Kolkata – 700 085 [Pan : Aaccm 2883 J] Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Kolkata.......…..…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri A.K. Singh, Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 12Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 10Th , 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- Both These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1, Kolkata, (Ld. Pr. Cit) Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (The ‘Act’), Both Dt. 22/03/2017, For The Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2. Both These Appeals Belong To The Same Assessee. Hence For The Sake Of Convenience, They Are Heard Together & Disposed Off By Way Of This Common Order. 3. The Assessee Is A Company & Is In The Business Of Real Estate & Related Activities. It Filed Its Original Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2011-12 On 29/09/2011, Declaring Nil Income & For The Assessment Year 2012-13 On 29/09/2012, Declaring Total Income Of Rs.5,48,59,970/-. A Search & Seizure Operation Was Conducted U/S 132 Of The Act On The Assessee On 04/10/2012. Consequentially Notice U/S 153A Of The Act, Were Issued & The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income In Response Thereto Declaring The Same Income As That Disclosed By It In The Original Return Of Income For Both The Assessment Years. The Assessing

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 40

…the assessee that the payment in question is reimbursement of expenditure to its joint-venture partner, and hence no TDS needs to be made. According to the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of G.E. India Technology Centre vs. CIT reported in 327 ITR 456 (SC) held that when there is no element of income in the remittance, no deduction of ta at source need be made. In the case on hand when both the parties are assessed by the same assessing officer under the ld. Pr. CIT’s jurisdiction, come enquiry had to be made. By not doing so, the ld. Pr. CIT has, in our opinion, not come to a conclusion as to…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1), Bengaluru vs. M/S Bank of India, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1546/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Bank Of India, The Assistant Commissioner Cantonment Branch, Of Income Tax (Tds), No. 49, Jyothi Mahal, Vs. Circle – 1 (1), St. Marks Road, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Tan: Blrb00968C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri T.N. Prakash, Addl. Cit (Dr)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri T.N. Prakash, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 12ASection 194ASection 195Section 197Section 201(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/s. Bank of India, The Assistant Commissioner Cantonment Branch, of Income Tax (TDS), No. 49, Jyothi Mahal, vs. Circle – 1 (1), St. Marks Road, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. TAN: BLRB00968C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri T.N. Prakash, Addl. CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 03.04.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 10.04.2019 O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicial Member The revenue has filed an appeal against…

Shri Jogendra L. Bhati, Ahmedabad vs. Dy. CIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2136/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2136/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Jogendra L. Bhati Dcit, Cir.3(1)(1) 315, Nilkanth Palace-B Vs Ahmedabad. 100 Ft. Road Anandnagar Road Satellite Ahmedabad 380 015. Pan : Ahcpn 0228 N अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 195Section 40Section 9

…the Hon’ble High Court has held that if foreign commission is not assessable in India, then no TDS was required to be deducted. The Hon’ble Court put reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court it the case of GE India Technologe Centre P.Ltd. Vs. CIT, 327 ITR 456. In other words, for attracting section 195, there should be an element of income involved in the payment made by the assessee to a foreign agent. If the element of income is not involved, then TDS is not required to be deducted. The ld.counsel for the assessee has made reference to the decision of Hon’ble Madras high Court in the case of CIT Vs.…

Income Tax Officer(TDS) Ward, Wardha, Nagpur vs. M/S Varco Associates, Yavatmal

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 492/NAG/2014[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S. Kailash JoganiFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Baral
Section 133ASection 201Section 201(1)

…ssessee firm. Payment of interest on loans from partners, no TDS was required to be deducted. 5. Thus, in facts of the case and in the light of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of GE India Technology Center Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT reported as 327 ITR 456 the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 4 ITA No. 492/NAG/2014, A.Y. 2013-14 deleted the addition. We do not find any infirmity in the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed. 6. In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on Frida…

Giesecke & Devrient (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2544/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(10)

…with the order passed by the tribunal deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 40(a)(i). CIT versus Eli Lilly Company (India) Private Limited, (2009) 312 ITR 225 (SC) ; G.E India Technologies Centre Private Limited versus CIT, (2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC), CIT versus 45 Toshoku Limited, (1980) 125 ITR 525 (SC), Catholic Syrian Bank Limited versus Commissioner of Income Tax, (2012) 3 SCC 784, followed. (Paras 4, 9, 10) We, accordingly, decide this issue in favour of the assessee. 28. Charging of interest u/s. 234B and 234C is consequential in nature and the AO is directed to give its conse…

DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Amol Dicalite Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 539/AHD/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 539/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1246/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 The D.C.I.T, Amol Dicalite Ltd. Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. 301, Akshay, 53, Ahmedabad Shirmali Society Navrangpura, Ahmedabad

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, A.R
Section 40

…eable to tax in India under section 4, 5 and 9 of the Act. Accordingly, there is no question of deducting the tax at source u/s 195 of the Act. The assessee in support of its contention relied on Apex court in case of GE India technology Cen. P. Ltd. Vs. CIT (193 Taxmann 234). 9 Without prejudice, the assessee also contended that the fees for technical services in India are taxable in India only when these services are utilized in India and also rendered in India as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ishikawajma Harima heavy industries Ltd (288 ITR 408). The assessee also contended that the same decis…

The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Amol Dicalite Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1246/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 539/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1246/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 The D.C.I.T, Amol Dicalite Ltd. Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. 301, Akshay, 53, Ahmedabad Shirmali Society Navrangpura, Ahmedabad

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, A.R
Section 40

…eable to tax in India under section 4, 5 and 9 of the Act. Accordingly, there is no question of deducting the tax at source u/s 195 of the Act. The assessee in support of its contention relied on Apex court in case of GE India technology Cen. P. Ltd. Vs. CIT (193 Taxmann 234). 9 Without prejudice, the assessee also contended that the fees for technical services in India are taxable in India only when these services are utilized in India and also rendered in India as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ishikawajma Harima heavy industries Ltd (288 ITR 408). The assessee also contended that the same decis…

The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Jay Chemical Industries Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal ITA 2693/Ahd/2014, ITA 305/Ahd/2015, cross objection 01/Ahd/2015 & 41/Ahd/2015 all are dismissed

ITA 305/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Mar 2019AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Nimish Viawala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Talwani, Sr. D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 4Section 40Section 5Section 5(2)(b)Section 9Section 9(1)(i)

…not at all chargeable to tax in India then no deduction of tax at source is required to be made on such payments. The assessee has also placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC) and I.T.A Nos. 2693/Ahd/2014, 305/Ahd/2015 & CO Nos.01 & 41/Ahd/2015 Page No 3 CIT vs. Toshoku Ltd. 125 ITR 525 (SC). The assessing officer has not agreed with the submission of the assessee. He was of the view that in the case of the assessee, the income accruing or arising directly or indirectly through or from any source of income in Ind…

The DCIT(OSD)-1, Circle-4, Ahmedabad vs. Jay Chemical Industries Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal ITA 2693/Ahd/2014, ITA 305/Ahd/2015, cross objection 01/Ahd/2015 & 41/Ahd/2015 all are dismissed

ITA 2693/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Mar 2019AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Nimish Viawala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Talwani, Sr. D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 4Section 40Section 5Section 5(2)(b)Section 9Section 9(1)(i)

…not at all chargeable to tax in India then no deduction of tax at source is required to be made on such payments. The assessee has also placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC) and I.T.A Nos. 2693/Ahd/2014, 305/Ahd/2015 & CO Nos.01 & 41/Ahd/2015 Page No 3 CIT vs. Toshoku Ltd. 125 ITR 525 (SC). The assessing officer has not agreed with the submission of the assessee. He was of the view that in the case of the assessee, the income accruing or arising directly or indirectly through or from any source of income in Ind…

Central Electronics Ltd., Uttar Pradesh vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4205/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 195(1)Section 32Section 40Section 9

…resident. For services rendered outside in India. The Assessing Officer wrongly considered the payment of brokerage as fees for technical services. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of GE India Technology Centre Vs. CIT(A) 327 ITR 456 (S.C.) wherein it is held that tax deduction at source obligations u/s 195(1) arise only if the payment is chargeable to tax in the hands of nonresident recipients. Therefore, merely because a person has not deducted tax at source from a remittance abroad it cannot be inferred that person making the remittance has committed a failure in dischargi…

DCIT, Circle-2 (1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Jagson Colorchem Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue and the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 112/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं. Ita No.112/Ahd/2017 With Co No. 32/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Asstt. Years: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Karan Shah, A.R
Section 195Section 37Section 37(1)Section 40

…आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद"यायपीठ ‘D’- अहमदाबाद। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD – BENCH ‘D’ BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. ITA No.112/Ahd/2017 WITH CO No. 32/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Asstt. Years: 2013-14 DCIT Vs. M/s. Jagson Colorchem Cir. 2(1)(2), Ahmedabad Ltd. 1st Floor Navjivan Trust 5601/1,PhaseII, Building, GIDC,Vatva, Ahmedabad-380 014 Ahmedabad-382445 PAN- AAACJ7664C Appellant/ Respondent Respondent / Cross Objector Assessee by : Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr. D.R Revenue by : Shri Karan Shah, A.R सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of H…

ACIT - 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Indo Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7462/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G Manjunatha () & Shri Ravish Sood () Acit-2(2)(10, Mumbai Vs M/S Indo Industries Ltd A-1, Samir Apartments 169, S.V. Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai-58 Pan : Aaaci8197D Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…es not apply when no income is found to be taxable in India, therefore, there was no reason for making any disallowance under provisions of Section 40(a)(i) in view of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G.E.India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd., 327 ITR 456. There are also judicial pronouncements supporting this proposition, which are reported in 10 ITR 501(Trib), 86 ITD 102 and 10 ITR 147(Trib). 10. Payment of brokerage to the said non-resident brokers for non technical services is the business income of the payee and therefore, not liable to tax in India as was held in the case of Sri Subharaman S…

M/S Bg Exploration & Production India Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO (TDS), Dehradun

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2443/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 153Section 192Section 200Section 201Section 221Section 9

…IT Act in the matter of ascertainment of taxability under the Income Tax Act. At this juncture, it is worth to mention the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2010] 7 taxmann.com 18/193 Taxman 234/327 ITR 456 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has decided that there was no obligation for withholding tax on any person making payment to a non-resident, if the payment made to non-resident is not chargeable under the provisions of the I.T. Act. After considering the totality of the facts of the case in hand, in our 24. considered opinion, the revenue could n…

M/S. Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ADIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed with above direction

ITA 1909/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.K. Dhall, CIT
Section 143Section 144C

…ion 4o(a)(i) of the Act on account of non-deduction of tax at source. 5.2 Payments made to non-residents are subject to tax deduction under Section 195 of the Act. It is submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (327 ITR 456) has held that Section 195 of the Act provides obligation to deduct tax on payments to non-resident which are taxable in India. Thus, in case the payment is not taxable in India, the obligation to deduct tax does not trigger at all. 5.3 It is pertinent to note that as Teras Transporters Pte. Ltd. is a Company registered in Singapore, it has the o…

DCIT, Central Circle - 1(4), Kolkata vs. M/S. Hindustan Urban Infrastructure Ltd.(Hindustan Vidyut Product Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 1616/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 246ASection 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 40ASection 9(1)(vii)

…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…

DCIT, Central Circle - 1(4), Kolkata vs. M/S. Hindustan Urban Infrastructure Ltd.(Hindustan Vidyut Product Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 1615/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 246ASection 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 40ASection 9(1)(vii)

…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…

M/S Clear Water Technology Services Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-11(1), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2011-12 is partly allowed

ITA 1419/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Clear Water Technology Vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Services Pvt. Ltd., Ward – 11(1), No. 39, Srushti, 15Th Main, Bangalore. Rose Garden Road, 5Th Phase, Jp Nagar, Bangalore – 560 078. Pan : Aabcc 8515 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. B. S. Balachandran, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Srinandini Das, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.12.2018

For Appellant: Shri. B. S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Srinandini Das, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40

…ld that there was no obligation on the part of the Assessee to deduct tax at source. The following were the relevant observations of the Tribunal. "4.16 Also the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre (P) Ltd. v. CIT & Anr reported in 327 ITR 456 (SC) has made it implicit that 'The most important expression in s. 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, if such sum is not chargeable to tax under the I.T.Act. 4.17 Moreover, the Hon'ble earlier Bench of this Tribunal ha…

ACIT, Cir-5(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Bativala & Karani Securities (India) (P) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1812/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 1812/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Acit, Circle-5(2), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Batlivala & Karnani Securities (I)(P) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcb 4650 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Robin Chowdhury, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Agarwal, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 40

…iaries as a result no TDS is required to be deducted on the amount paid as reimbursement. In order to support the said contention, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Cen. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2010] 327 ITR 456/193 Taxman 234/7 taxmann.com 18. However, the ld. CIT(A) held that the payments made by the assessee are for consideration of various services provided by the subsidiaries. He held that as per the provisions of S. 195 of the Act TDS is not to be deducted on income but on gross payment. He further held that the assessee is not to see the income or…