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 372,273 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

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

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is thus dismissed

ITA 355/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Nov 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Talati, A.R
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 37(1)Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…s no properly 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 in case of GE India Technology Centre Private Limited 327 ITR 456 and the judgement of hon’ble ITAT Mumbai in the case of our Ardesi B Cursetjee & Sons Ltd. 115 TTJ 916. 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 deemed to accrue or arise in India and is taxable under the Act in view of the specific provisions of se…

DCIT, Gurgaon vs. M/S. Dlf Projects Ltd., Gurgaon

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 5178/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Dlf Projects Ltd. Circle 1(1), (Formerly Dt Projects Ltd.), Vs Gurgaon. 3Rd Floor, Shopping Mall, Arjun Nagar, Dlf City, Phase-I, Gurgaon. (Pan: Aaccd3093R) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DRFor Respondent: S/Shri R.S. Singhvi, Satyejeet, CAs
Section 192Section 195Section 40

…of salaries by LOR Cyprus and as such the reimbursement of actual cost portion was not exigible to the withholding tax in view of judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in 6 Assessment year 2009-10 the case of GE India Technology Ltd. vs. CIT reported in [2010] 327 ITR 456 (SC). 3.1.1 The Ld. AR also submitted that the actual payment made to LOR Cyprus has further been disbursed to respective employees after deduction of TDS u/s 192 of the Act and as such there is no case of any default in complying with the withholding tax provisions. Reference was made to the specific finding of the Ld. CIT (Appeals) recorded…

M/S Kei Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO (International Taxation), New Delhi

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

ITA 6400/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2018AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Ms Gargi Sethee, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 195Section 200ASection 201Section 206Section 206ASection 90(2)

…TR 225 (SC) 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 Centre Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, (2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC) 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 5 of the Act. Thus, where s…

Karnavati Engineering Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) Circle-4, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1400/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Oct 2018AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)Section 40

…der 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 (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2010] 327 ITR 456/193 Taxman 234/7 taxmann.com 18, 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-re…

DDIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Unocol Bharat Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1388/DEL/2012[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2018AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar RaoFor Respondent: Shri G.K. Dhall, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 40

…the amount paid to the non-resident whose income is not chargeable to tax in India, then no tax is required to be deducted u/s 195. Reliance was placed by him on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT, 327 ITR 456. He further held that, since provision of section 40(a)(i) has no application in the context of India-Mauritius DTAA, the same cannot be disallowed by the AO by invoking such provision. 7. Before us, Ld. CIT DR submitted that the specific reason given by the AO for making disallowance was that the assessee could not substantiate, whether these ex…

M/S. Royal Touch Fablon Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. JCIT, Range - 4, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2386/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. J.Sudhakar Reddy & Sh. S.S.Viswanethra Ravi[Assessment Year: 2011-12] Vs Jcit, M/S. Royal Touch Fablon Pvt.Ltd., 4, Synagogue Street, Range-4, P-7, Kolkata-700001. Chowringhee Square, Pan-Aabcr5842F Aayakar Bhawan, Kolkata-700069. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. S.M.Surana, Adv. Respondent By Sh. M.K.Biswas, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing 04.09.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 05.10.2018 Order Per J.Sudhakar Reddythis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.11.2017 Passed By Cit(A)-2, Kolkata For Ay 2011-12 On The Following Effective Ground:-

Section 40

…issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the ITAT, “C” Bench, Kolkata in ITA No.896/Kol/2015 in DCIT vs M/s Bonie Apparels (P.) Ltd. Dated 06.09.2018. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of G.E.India Technology Centre P. Ltd. Vs CIT [2010] 327 ITR 456(SC), has held that “no tax should be deducted at source if there is no element of income chargeable to tax in the amount being remitted paid to party.” Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition on the wrong ground, that the assessee should proof the negative i.e. that it does not have the permanent establishment in India. In view of the above discussion,…

DCIT, Circle-15(2), Kolkata vs. M/S L.G.W. Limited, North 24 Parganas

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1786/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13 Dcit, Circle-15(2), V/S. M/S L.G.W. Ltd., 10, Shantipally, Em Vill. Narayanpur, P.O. Bypass, Aayakar Rajarhat, Gopalpur, 24- Bhawan, Poorva, 6Th Parganas (North), West Floor, R.No.615, Bengal-700136 Kolkata-700 107 [Pan No.Aaacl 4670 N] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri G. Mallikarjuna, Cit- अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Dr Shri A.K. Tibrerwal, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 09-07-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 05-10-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Kolkata’S Order Dated 29.06.2016, Passed In Case No.47/Cit(A)-5/Cir.14(1)/15-16, In Proceedings U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties Case File Perused. 2. The Revenue’S First Substantive Ground Challenges Correctness Of The Cit(A)’S Action Reversing Assessment Findings Disallowing The Taxpayer’S Commission Payments Made To Foreign Export Agents Amounting To ₹257,60,898/- For Non Deduction Of Tds U/S 40(A)(I) As Follows:- “1. Commission To Foreign Agents - Rs.2,57,60,898/- The Ao Has Added Sum Of Rs.2,57,60,898/- By Holding That The Said Amounts Were Paid To Foreign Agents Without Deduction Of Tds U/S.195. The Addition Has Been Made U/S

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

…vs. Divi's Laboratories Ltd. [2011J 1311TD 271 (Hyd) (iii) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Toshoku Ltd. [1980J 125 ITR 525 (SC) (iv) Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation & Others vs. CIT [2009J 314 ITR 309 (SC) (v) G E India Technology Centre P. Ltd. vs. CIT [2010J 327 ITR 456 (SC) (vi) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Faizen Shoes Pvt Ltd. [2014J 367 ITR 155 (Mad) (vii) CT vs. Fluidtherm Technology Pvt. Ltd. [2015J 57 taxmann.com 87 (Mad) 1.3 However the Id. DCIT did not agree with the submission of the assessee as aforesaid and disallowed the amount of commission paid to overseas agents by wrongly invoked the provision…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Sh. Kulbeer Singh, New Delhi

ITA 5204/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Vs. Kulbeer Singh, Ward-26(1), H-432, Vikas Puri, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Amqps5847P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 195Section 197Section 40Section 9

…services, therefore the Explanation to sub-section (2) of section 9 has no application to the facts of the assessee‟s case. We see that this case is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Cen. P. Ltd. Vs. CIT (327 ITR 456) wherein the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that the assessee is not liable to deduct TDS when non- residents provided service outside India . It was held that when the services are provided outside India, the commission payments made to non- residents cannot be treated as income deemed to accrue or arise in India, therefore, the provisions of sectio…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Turbo Energy Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals as well as Revenue’s appeals are dismissed’’

ITA 2494/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. S. Bharath, IRS, CIT
Section 35

…nless the non-resident has permanent establishment/or business connection in India as envisaged in Sec.9(1) of IT Act. The Ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of GE Technological Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT 327 ITR 456. The findings and conclusions arrived in earlier ground in respect of payment made to M/s.Biggleswade Ltd., are squarely applicable to this ground also. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and the same is upheld. The Revenue’s appeal on this issue for the A.Ys 2007-08, 2008-09 and A.Y 2009-10 are dismissed’’. Th…

Turbo Energy Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals as well as Revenue’s appeals are dismissed’’

ITA 2493/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. S. Bharath, IRS, CIT
Section 35

…nless the non-resident has permanent establishment/or business connection in India as envisaged in Sec.9(1) of IT Act. The Ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of GE Technological Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT 327 ITR 456. The findings and conclusions arrived in earlier ground in respect of payment made to M/s.Biggleswade Ltd., are squarely applicable to this ground also. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and the same is upheld. The Revenue’s appeal on this issue for the A.Ys 2007-08, 2008-09 and A.Y 2009-10 are dismissed’’. Th…

ITO, Gurgaon vs. M/S. Filco Trade Centre, Gurgaon

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6486/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT DR
Section 1Section 195Section 40

…llowed u/s 40(a)(ia} of the Act as neither tax has been deducted nor certificate of no-deduction of tax from the A. O. has been obtained." 9.11 However the Counsel of the appellant has drawn by attention to the GE India Technology Centre Pvt Ltd v. CIT [20101 327 ITR 456 (SC) in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reversed the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court. A brief synopsis of that shall not be out of place. The facts of the case are that The assessee, an Indian company, made remittance to a foreign company for purchase of software. The assessee took the view that the payment was not chargeable to…

Ciena Communications India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 6(1), New Delhi

In the result grounds raised by assessee for the year under consideration stands allowed

ITA 3563/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri R.K.Panda & Smt. Beena A Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. D.R
Section 234DSection 244ASection 250(6)Section 253(1)(a)Section 40

…d.Sr.DR placed reliance upon following decisions: • Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Transmission Corporation of A.P Ltd., vs. CIT reported in (1999) 239 ITR 587; • Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of GE India Technology Cen. (P) Ltd., vs. CIT reported in (2010) 327 ITR 456; • Decision by Kolkata Tribunal in case of Gentex Merchants Pvt. Ltd., vs. DDIT reported in (2005) 94 ITD 2011; Page 8 of 17 ITA Nos. 3561, 3562 and 3563/Del/2018 A.Y. 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Ciena Communications India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Circle-6(1), N.D. • Decision by Delhi Tribunal in case of Godaddy.com LLC vs ACIT reported in (2018) 92 T…

Ciena Communications India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 6(1), New Delhi

In the result grounds raised by assessee for the year under consideration stands allowed

ITA 3562/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri R.K.Panda & Smt. Beena A Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. D.R
Section 234DSection 244ASection 250(6)Section 253(1)(a)Section 40

…d.Sr.DR placed reliance upon following decisions: • Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Transmission Corporation of A.P Ltd., vs. CIT reported in (1999) 239 ITR 587; • Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of GE India Technology Cen. (P) Ltd., vs. CIT reported in (2010) 327 ITR 456; • Decision by Kolkata Tribunal in case of Gentex Merchants Pvt. Ltd., vs. DDIT reported in (2005) 94 ITD 2011; Page 8 of 17 ITA Nos. 3561, 3562 and 3563/Del/2018 A.Y. 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Ciena Communications India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Circle-6(1), N.D. • Decision by Delhi Tribunal in case of Godaddy.com LLC vs ACIT reported in (2018) 92 T…

Ciena Communications India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 6(1), New Delhi

In the result grounds raised by assessee for the year under consideration stands allowed

ITA 3561/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri R.K.Panda & Smt. Beena A Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. D.R
Section 234DSection 244ASection 250(6)Section 253(1)(a)Section 40

…d.Sr.DR placed reliance upon following decisions: • Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Transmission Corporation of A.P Ltd., vs. CIT reported in (1999) 239 ITR 587; • Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of GE India Technology Cen. (P) Ltd., vs. CIT reported in (2010) 327 ITR 456; • Decision by Kolkata Tribunal in case of Gentex Merchants Pvt. Ltd., vs. DDIT reported in (2005) 94 ITD 2011; Page 8 of 17 ITA Nos. 3561, 3562 and 3563/Del/2018 A.Y. 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Ciena Communications India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Circle-6(1), N.D. • Decision by Delhi Tribunal in case of Godaddy.com LLC vs ACIT reported in (2018) 92 T…

DCIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7241/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mangalore Refinery & Addl. Cit-3(2), Mumbai Petrochemicals Ltd. 15Th Vs. Floor, Maker Tower, Ewing, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005. Pan No. Aaacm5132A Respondent Appellant Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit-3(2) Room No. Mangalore Refinery & 674, 6Th Floor, Petrochemicals Ltd. 15Th Vs. Aayakarbhavan, M. K. Floor, Maker Tower, Ewing, Road, Mumbai-400020. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005. Pan No. Aaacm5132A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. J.D.J. Mistri, Senior Advocate & Mr. Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Revenue By : Mr.Samuel Darse, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 12/06/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/09/2018

For Appellant: Mr. J.D.J. Mistri, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Samuel Darse, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 44B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “L” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mangalore Refinery & Addl. CIT-3(2), Mumbai Petrochemicals Ltd. 15th Vs. Floor, Maker Tower, Ewing, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005. PAN No. AAACM5132A Respondent Appellant Assessment Year: 2009-10 DCIT-3(2) Room No. Mangalore Refinery & 674, 6th Floor, Petrochemicals Ltd. 15th Vs. AayakarBhavan, M. K. Floor, Maker Tower, Ewing, Road, Mumbai-400020. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005. PAN No. AAACM5132A Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. J.D.J. Mis…

Magnalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 3(2)

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7133/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mangalore Refinery & Addl. Cit-3(2), Mumbai Petrochemicals Ltd. 15Th Vs. Floor, Maker Tower, Ewing, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005. Pan No. Aaacm5132A Respondent Appellant Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit-3(2) Room No. Mangalore Refinery & 674, 6Th Floor, Petrochemicals Ltd. 15Th Vs. Aayakarbhavan, M. K. Floor, Maker Tower, Ewing, Road, Mumbai-400020. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005. Pan No. Aaacm5132A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. J.D.J. Mistri, Senior Advocate & Mr. Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Revenue By : Mr.Samuel Darse, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 12/06/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/09/2018

For Appellant: Mr. J.D.J. Mistri, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Samuel Darse, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 44B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “L” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mangalore Refinery & Addl. CIT-3(2), Mumbai Petrochemicals Ltd. 15th Vs. Floor, Maker Tower, Ewing, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005. PAN No. AAACM5132A Respondent Appellant Assessment Year: 2009-10 DCIT-3(2) Room No. Mangalore Refinery & 674, 6th Floor, Petrochemicals Ltd. 15th Vs. AayakarBhavan, M. K. Floor, Maker Tower, Ewing, Road, Mumbai-400020. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005. PAN No. AAACM5132A Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. J.D.J. Mis…

Asst CIT 19(3), Mumbai vs. S.K. Age Exports, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2524/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2013-14 Acit-19(3), M/S S.K. Age Exports, R. No.206M 2Nd Floor, 3-A, Shivsagar Estate, Dr. बनाम/ Matru Mandir, Annie Besant Road, Worli, Vs. Tardeo Raod, Mumbai-400018 Mumbai-400007 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaafs4534R

Section 143(3)Section 195

…se, amendment to section 9(1 )(i) was also referred to. 2.4.9 Having considered the entire gamut of facts as also the case laws cited in respect of the export commission, I find that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G.E. India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd., 327 ITR 456 (SC) held that a person paying interest or any sum to a non-resident is not liable to deduct tax if such sum is not chargeable to tax under the Income Tax Act, 1961. It further held that if the contention of the Department that the moment there is remittance, the obligation to pay tax arises is to be accepted, then the words 'chargeable under the…

ACIT, Circle-4(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Goodrick Group Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 2088/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)Section 40

…assessee. The section 195(1) casts an obligation to deduct tax only when any sum is chargeable to tax under the provisions of the Act and this position in law was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd's case reported in 327 ITR 456. The fact that the services of the export agent were rendered outside India, they are not maintaining any permanent establishment in India, they are not engaged in any activities in India and the payments were received outside India has not been disputed by the AO. I am, therefore, of the view that section 40(a)(i) is not applicable in this case…

ACIT, Circle-4(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Goodrick Group Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 2087/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)Section 40

…assessee. The section 195(1) casts an obligation to deduct tax only when any sum is chargeable to tax under the provisions of the Act and this position in law was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd's case reported in 327 ITR 456. The fact that the services of the export agent were rendered outside India, they are not maintaining any permanent establishment in India, they are not engaged in any activities in India and the payments were received outside India has not been disputed by the AO. I am, therefore, of the view that section 40(a)(i) is not applicable in this case…

DCIT, Cir-12, Kolkata vs. M/S Organon (India) Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 751/KOL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 195Section 40

…ee, there is no legal requirement for the assessee to deduct tax at source u/S 195 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961. This proposition of law was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre P Ltd. vs. CIT & Another (2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC), wherein it is held as follows [Head Notes]:- “TDS—Payment to non-resident—Obligation to deduct tax vis-a-vis taxability of remittance—Most important expression in s. 195(1) consists of the words "chargeable under the provisions of the Act"—Payer is bound to deduct tax at source only if the sum paid is assessable to tax in India—A person pay…