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 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 372,272 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 195 Section 40(a)(i)Section 40(a)(ia)Section 143(3)Section 115JB Section 201(1A)Section 14A Section 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 195 fees for included services section 9(1)(vii)business connection section 9(1)

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

Organon (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. The DCIT, Cir-12, Kolkata

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

ITA 677/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Aug 2018AY 2008-2009

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…

Maithan Alloys Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, (It), WD-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 517/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

Section 200ASection 206ASection 90(2)

…olding 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. v. 5 Maithan Alloys Ltd., AY 2011-12 CIT,MANU/SC/0688/2010 : (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…

Evolv Clothing Company Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above and for the assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 1573/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1572 & 1573/Chny/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12) M/S. Evolv Clothing Company Pvt. Vs The Acit, Ltd., Corporate Circle 2(1), (Formerly Known As Isex Fashions P Chennai – 34. Ltd), 471, Mkn Road, Alandur, Chennai – 600 016. Pan: Aaaci0900L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Paruna Sundri, CITFor Respondent: 28.06.2018

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 250(6)Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन एन एन.आर एन आर आर.एस आर एस एस. गणेशन एस गणेशन गणेशन,"याियक गणेशन "याियक "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य सद"य एवं ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य के सम" सद"य BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1572 & 1573/Chny/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12) M/s. Evolv Clothing Company Pvt. Vs The ACIT, Ltd., Corporate Circle 2(1), (formerly known as Isex Fashions P Chennai – 34. Ltd), 471, MKN Road, Alandur, Chennai – 600 016. PAN: AAAC…

Evolv Clothing Company Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above and for the assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 1572/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Ms. Paruna Sundri, CITFor Respondent: 28.06.2018

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 250(6)Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

Hanumesh Reltors P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. TRO (RG) 1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4012/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar, D.R

Section 133ASection 195Section 195(1)Section 201Section 5(2)Section 9(1)(vii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Hanumesh Realtors Tax Recovery Officer Pvt. Ltd., (TDS) Range -1, Raaj Chamber, Charni Road, Plot No.115 115/IT-03, Vs. Mumbai R.K. Paramhans Marg, Andheri East, Mumbai – 400 069 PAN: AABCH 5774L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Pradeep Sharma, A.R. Revenue by : Shri V. Vidhyadhar, D.R. Date of Hearing : 09.07.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 23.07.2018 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member: The present ap…

Ananth Technologies Limited., Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)., Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1246/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, ARFor Respondent: Smt. N. Swapna, DR

Section 195Section 40Section 9Section 9(1)(i)

…itted that the agent has no permanent establishment in India and since the provisions of Section 9 are not applicable, there is no requirement of TDS to be made. Assessee relied on the judgment in the case of M/s. GE India Technology Centre (P) Ltd., Vs. CIT [327 ITR 456] (SC). However, Ld.CIT(A) took an altogether different stand and rejected the contentions of assessee by stating as under: “5.4. Appellant had entered into an agreement with TM India LLC, Texas to pay a commission. However, this document is not registered or on a stamp paper. The TM India LLC is a company based in Houston, Texas, USA and the man…

M/S Mcc Pta India Corpn. Pvt. Ltd., Purba Medinipur vs. ACIT, Cir-59, TDS, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 151/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jul 2018AY 2011-2012

Section 11Section 194Section 194ISection 201(1)

…ith section 204 and no tax is required to be deducted if the amount payable is not chargeable under the provisions of the Act. The case of payment to a non-resident was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in GE India Technology Centre P. Ltd.v CIT, (2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC), where it was held that provisions relating to tax deduction at source applied only to those sums which were chargeable to tax under the Act. The said case dealt with section 195 of the Act but the principle laid down therein is equally applicable even in respect of provisions relating to deduction of tax at source from payments to residents…

The DCIT, Panchmahal Circle, Panchmahal vs. The Panchmahal Steel Ltd., Panchmahal

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 634/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.634/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-2014 Dcit, Panchmahal Circle Vs. The Panchmahal Steel Ltd. Godhra 389 001. Gidc, Kalol Dist: Panchmahal,Gujarat.

For Appellant: Shri M.J. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 195Section 40

…etainer fee made by the appellant to the non- 4 resident companies for securing business outside India where the said entities had no office or business operations in India. 3.3.2. Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of GE India Technology Cen. (P.) Ltd. [2010] 327 ITR 456(SC) has held that the expression "chargeable under the provisions of the Act in Sec.195(1)" shows that the remittance has to be of trading receipt, the whole or part of which, is liable to tax in India. If tax is not so assessable, there is no question of tax at source being deducted. Ld. Authorized representative has also relied on some recent d…

Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst DIT 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are allowed as above

ITA 599/MUM/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

For Respondent: Shri M. V. Rajguru

Section 195

…e cannot be any liability on the assessee to deduct tax at source u/s. 195 of the Act. Further, the assessee has made submissions in this regard that as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of G. E. Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (327 ITR 456)(SC), there is no liability to deduct TDS when the income is held to be not chargeable to tax in the hands of the recipient. For the acceptance of the aforesaid additional ground, it has been submitted that it is an important legal issue and for the substantial justice, the same should be accepted. On the touch stone of various case laws referre…

Customer Lab Solutions Private Limited, Hyderabad, Bangalore vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 438/HYD/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri G.V. Gurunathan, ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Prasad Rao, DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40Section 9

…d/2017 either under 9(1)(vi) or under the meaning of Royalty as defined under Article 12(3) in DTAA between India and USA. 3.2. It was further submitted that as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre (P.) Ltd Vs. CIT [2010] [327 ITR 456] / 193 Taxman 234, tax deduction at source obligations under section 195(1) arise only if the payment is chargeable to tax in the hands of nonresident recipient. Therefore, merely because a person has not deducted tax at source from a remittance abroad, it cannot be inferred that the person making the remittance has committed a failure in dischar…

Kgl Network (P) Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 14(2), New Delhi

ITA 301/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Priyansh Jain, C.A. &For Respondent: Shri Vijay Verma, CIT-D.R

Section 234ASection 40Section 40A(3)Section 44B

…. Accordingly, provisions of section 8 ITA.No.301/Del./2018 M/s. KGL Network (P) Ltd., Delhi. 194C do not apply. The assessee-company relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of G.E. India Technology Centre (P) Ltd., vs. CIT (2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC) in which it was held that “any person paying any sum to a non- resident is not liable to deduct tax if such sum is not chargeable to tax under the Act.” The assessee-company also relied upon other decisions of Hon’ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Estel Communications (P) Ltd., (2008) 217 CTR 102 (Del.) and decisi…

Alpha Foam Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 1535/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 1535/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha

Section 195Section 40

…a. The overseas party has no permanent establishment in India, therefore, payment of commission is not chargeable to tax in India, hence, no TDS was deducted. 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre (P) ltd. vs. CIT reported as 327 ITR 456 has held that mere remittance to non- resident would not attract provision for deduction to tax at source. The duty to deduct tax at source arise where remittance are wholly or partially taxable in India. If, tax is not assessable, there is no question of tax at source being deducted. 9. The Lucknow Bench of Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. S.…

Ciena India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 984/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Ms. Reetika Garg (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal (Sr. DR)

Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

…n default merely on the ground that the amount was paid without obtaining any certificate from the AO u/s 195(2) or the accountant's certificate. Case Law Relevant para and page of case law compilation. GE India Technology Centre P. Ltd. v. Page no. 328 CIT(327 ITR 456) and 329 The Supreme Court held that where the payer is certain that payment is not chargeable to tax, it can by itself not withhold tax and need not approach the revenue for dispensation. Circular no. 10 of 2002 and 759 dated 18 Page no. 330- November 1997 issued by CBDT 334 Remittance may be allowed by the RBI without insisting upon a NOC fr…

Ciena India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 959/DEL/2011[2007-08 (F.Y. 2006-07)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2018

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Ms. Reetika Garg (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal (Sr. DR)

Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

ACIT, Cir-2, TDS, Kolkata vs. Lux Industries Ltd., Kolkata

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 1145/KOL/2015[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jun 2018AY 2013-2014

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

For Appellant: Shri Nicholas Murmu, Addl. CIT, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Amit Agarwal, AR

Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)Section 9(2)Section 91

…l discussion mutatis mutandis to conclude that the assessee’s commission expenditure in question is not taxable in the hands of its payees so as to attract TDS liability in its case as held in hon’ble apex court’s decision in GE India Technology Centre’s case 327 ITR 456 (SC) . The Revenue’s sole substantive ground as well as its appeal No.1144/Kol/2015 fails accordingly. 6. Same order to follow in Revenue’s latter appeal No.1145/Kol/2015 as both learned representatives have already indicated in the preceding paragraphs that the sole issue herein pertains to the very kind of payments made to Dubai based entities…

ACIT, Cir-2, TDS, Kolkata vs. Lux Industries Ltd., Kolkata

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 1144/KOL/2015[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jun 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

For Appellant: Shri Nicholas Murmu, Addl. CIT, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Amit Agarwal, AR

Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)Section 9(2)Section 91

ITO, WD-7(1), Kolkata vs. M/S M.S.K. Travels and Tours Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 284/KOL/2015[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jun 2018AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

For Appellant: Shri N.B.Som, Addl. CIT, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Bikash Chanda, AR

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 5(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(i)Section 9(2)Section 90(1)

…sions of a DTAA . The Revenue has therefore failed to prove that assessee’s recipient was assessable to tax in India qua the impugned payments under Chapter-XVII of the Act. Hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT 327 ITR 456(SC) settles the law that liability to deduct TDS applies only in case the payment in question is assessable to tax in overseas recipient’s hands in India under the provision of the Act. 8. Learned Addl CIT DR thereafter submits that the relevant Protocol applies only in case of India sign any tax treaty incorporating were beneficial assessment w…

Granite Services International India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 740/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Granite Services Dcit International India Private Vs Circle-10(2), Limited, Building No.7A, New Delhi 5Th Floor, Dlf Cyber City, Phase-Iii, Sector -25A, Gurgaon-122002 Pan Aaccg3374Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 144CSection 92Section 92C

…ty to deduct tax at source under the aforesaid section arises only if the amount paid/ payable to the non-resident is chargeable to tax in India. 29. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre (P) Ltd. [2010] 327 ITR 456 he submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the expression ’chargeable under the provisions of the Act’ is to be understood as a liability to pay Income-tax under the Act and unless, there is a liability to pay income- tax under the Act, it cannot be said that tax has to be deducted from the payment/remittances made by an Appellant…

Bajaj Eco Tec Products Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO (TDS) (It), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 4609/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri G. Manjunatha, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 4609, 4610 & 4611/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2011-12 & 2010-11) Bajaj Eco Tec Products Limited The Income-Tax Officer (Tds)-3, (Now Merged With Bajaj Hindustan (International Taxation), बनाम/ Sugar Limited) Scindia House, Ballard Pier, 2Nd Floor, Bajaj Bhavan, Mumbai-400 038 Vs. 226, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccb 8572 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Kirit Kamdar/ Shri Parth Achwal ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Rajat Mittal

For Appellant: Shri Kirit Kamdar/For Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal

Section 194A(3)(iii)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 6(3)

…determine the income chargeable to tax India. The payer cannot act as an Assessing Officer when the sum paid to the non-resident is chargeable to tax in India. This view has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Pvt. Ltd. 327 ITR 456. As in this case, the orders are being passed for FY 2008-09 to 2010-11 it is pertinent to make it clear that the proceedings are not time barred in view of provisions of section 201(3) of the IT Act which is applicable for payment to resident only. The matter in question relates to the non-resident However, the provisions of section 201(3) are r…

ACIT, Circle-34, Kol, Kolkata vs. M/S Calcutta Export Co., Kolkata

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 1462/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 May 2018AY 2012-13

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

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 195(2)Section 4Section 40

…India and the services by the said company was rendered outside India and such no services was rendered or no activity was performed in India. The relied on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s G. Technology Centre (P) Ltd vs. CIT (2010), 327 ITR 456 (SC) in which the hon'ble Apex Court has held that the question of deduction of tax u/s. 195 arises on when the remittance is a sum chargeable under the head i.e. chargeable u/s. 4,5 and 9 of the IT Act. Section 195(2) gets attracted to cases where payment made is a composite payment in which certain proportion of payment has an element of income…