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 372,258 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

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

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 93/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 May 2018AY 2010-2011

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…

ACIT 23(1), Mumbai vs. Nathpa Jhakri J.V., Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue and assessee are allowed in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 8536/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 40a

…d by the assessee are not chargeable to tax in India in the hands of the payee. Once the receipts are not chargeable to tax in India there is no obligation to deduct tax at source u/s 195 as held by the Supreme Court in the case of GE Technology Centre P Ltd (327 ITR 456). The assessee has also followed the alternative procedure laid down by CBDT by obtaining CA certificate for the remittances made by it and hence there was no need to approach the Assessing Officer u/s 195(2) of the Act. Thus, in the circumstances M/s. Nathpa Jhakri Joint Venture the assessee was not required to deduct tax at source u/s 195 from…

The Dy. CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Gujarat Microwax Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 2503/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 May 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Mahavir Prasadआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2503/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14) Dcit, M/S. Gujarat Microwax बनाम/ Cir – 2(1)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ahmedabad. 401 & 02, Sarthik Square, Sarkhej Gandhinagar Highway, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad – 380 054 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg 5593 P .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. Jayant Jhveri, Sr.D.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G.C. Pipara, C.A.

For Appellant: Dr. Jayant Jhveri, Sr.D.RFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Pipara, C.A
Section 195Section 40

…no property through or from which the income has been earned. Therefore, the provisions of section 9(1)(i) also cannot be applied. 2.15. Reliance is placed on the judgement of honourable Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre Private Limited 327 ITR 456 and the judgement of honourable 1TAT Mumbai in the case of our Ardesi B Cursetjee 8. Sons Ltd. 115 TTJ 916. 2.16. With regard to AO's observation about obtaining the certificate of Nil deduction of tax by the appellant from the I.T. authorities, there was no necessity to obtain the same for the reason that the payments to nonresident agents was m…

Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, (OSD), Range-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

ITA 3086/AHD/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

…assessee contended that both authorities have based their finding on the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Samsung Electronics, 320 ITR 209. This decision has been reversed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology, 327 ITR 456. He further relied upon CBDT Circular No.786 dated 7.2.2000 and order of the ITAT in the case of ACIT Vs. Best Roses Biotech P.Ltd., ITA No.283/Ahd/2013. 80. We have duly considered rival contentions and gone through the record. A perusal of the breakup of this expenditure would indicate that expenditure incurred by the assessee could be divided…

The ACIT, (OSD)Range-1, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

ITA 2957/AHD/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

…assessee contended that both authorities have based their finding on the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Samsung Electronics, 320 ITR 209. This decision has been reversed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology, 327 ITR 456. He further relied upon CBDT Circular No.786 dated 7.2.2000 and order of the ITAT in the case of ACIT Vs. Best Roses Biotech P.Ltd., ITA No.283/Ahd/2013. 80. We have duly considered rival contentions and gone through the record. A perusal of the breakup of this expenditure would indicate that expenditure incurred by the assessee could be divided…

The DCIT(OSD)Range-1, Ahmedabad vs. Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

ITA 817/AHD/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

…assessee contended that both authorities have based their finding on the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Samsung Electronics, 320 ITR 209. This decision has been reversed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology, 327 ITR 456. He further relied upon CBDT Circular No.786 dated 7.2.2000 and order of the ITAT in the case of ACIT Vs. Best Roses Biotech P.Ltd., ITA No.283/Ahd/2013. 80. We have duly considered rival contentions and gone through the record. A perusal of the breakup of this expenditure would indicate that expenditure incurred by the assessee could be divided…

Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT., (OSD)Range-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

ITA 773/AHD/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

…assessee contended that both authorities have based their finding on the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Samsung Electronics, 320 ITR 209. This decision has been reversed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology, 327 ITR 456. He further relied upon CBDT Circular No.786 dated 7.2.2000 and order of the ITAT in the case of ACIT Vs. Best Roses Biotech P.Ltd., ITA No.283/Ahd/2013. 80. We have duly considered rival contentions and gone through the record. A perusal of the breakup of this expenditure would indicate that expenditure incurred by the assessee could be divided…

The DCIT(OSD)Range-1, Ahmedabad vs. Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

ITA 692/AHD/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 May 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

…assessee contended that both authorities have based their finding on the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Samsung Electronics, 320 ITR 209. This decision has been reversed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology, 327 ITR 456. He further relied upon CBDT Circular No.786 dated 7.2.2000 and order of the ITAT in the case of ACIT Vs. Best Roses Biotech P.Ltd., ITA No.283/Ahd/2013. 80. We have duly considered rival contentions and gone through the record. A perusal of the breakup of this expenditure would indicate that expenditure incurred by the assessee could be divided…

DCIT, Chandigarh vs. M/S Winsome Textiles Industries Ltd., Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 933/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Tej Mohan SinghFor Respondent: Shri. D.S. Kalyan
Section 195Section 40Section 9

…of the nature of sum chargeable under the provisions of the Act are exigible for provision of tax deduction at source. Here we are inclined to refer to the judgment of the 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, whereby it has been held that section 195(1) of the Act uses the expression 'sum' chargeable under the provision of the Act and weightage is needed to be given to these words. Further, section 195 uses the word 'payer' and not the word 'assessees'. The payer is not assessee. The payer becomes an assessee in defau…

DCIT, Chandigarh vs. M/S Winsome Yarns Ltd., Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 932/CHANDI/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Tej Mohan SinghFor Respondent: Shri. D.S. Kalyan
Section 195Section 40Section 9

…of the nature of sum chargeable under the provisions of the Act are exigible for provision of tax deduction at source. Here we are inclined to refer to the judgment of the 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, whereby it has been held that section 195(1) of the Act uses the expression 'sum' chargeable under the provision of the Act and weightage is needed to be given to these words. Further, section 195 uses the word 'payer' and not the word 'assessees'. The payer is not assessee. The payer becomes an assessee in defau…

DCIT, Chandigarh vs. M/S Winsome Yarns Ltd., Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 804/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Tej Mohan SinghFor Respondent: Shri. D.S. Kalyan
Section 195Section 40Section 9

…of the nature of sum chargeable under the provisions of the Act are exigible for provision of tax deduction at source. Here we are inclined to refer to the judgment of the 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, whereby it has been held that section 195(1) of the Act uses the expression 'sum' chargeable under the provision of the Act and weightage is needed to be given to these words. Further, section 195 uses the word 'payer' and not the word 'assessees'. The payer is not assessee. The payer becomes an assessee in defau…

DCIT, C-4(1), Chandigarh vs. M/S Winsome Yarns Ltd, Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1321/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 May 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Tej Mohan SinghFor Respondent: Shri. D.S. Kalyan
Section 195Section 40Section 9

…of the nature of sum chargeable under the provisions of the Act are exigible for provision of tax deduction at source. Here we are inclined to refer to the judgment of the 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, whereby it has been held that section 195(1) of the Act uses the expression 'sum' chargeable under the provision of the Act and weightage is needed to be given to these words. Further, section 195 uses the word 'payer' and not the word 'assessees'. The payer is not assessee. The payer becomes an assessee in defau…

The ITO, Ward-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Excel Chemicals India Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2570/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 May 2018AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 5(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(i)

…aw that when the payment made to a non- resident does not have an element of income, tax deduction source requirements under section 195(2) do not come into play at all. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of G E India Technology Centre (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2010] 327 ITR 456/193 Taxman 234/7 taxmann.com 18, has inter alia observed as follows: In our view, Section 195(2) is based on the "principle of proportionality". The said sub-Section gets attracted only in cases where the payment made is a composite payment in which a certain proportion of payment has an element of "income" chargeable to tax in India. It is in th…

ACIT 32(1), Mumbai vs. Index, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4934/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am The Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Index Income Tax, 32(1), Mumbai Shri Chandraiah B Kalal, Prop. Of Cb & Sons, Plot Vs. No. 7 D1, Mandar Chs Ltd., Rsc 21, Gorai 1, Borivali West, Mumbai-400 092 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aaafi3844E

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Virender singh, DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(i)

…dent agents outside India for procuring export orders for overseas 3 buyers, the income is not assessable in India chargeable to tax in India. Accordingly, following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Cen. P Ltd. vs. CIT 327 ITR 456 (2010)(SC) by observing in Para 4.5 to 4.7 deleted the disallowance by observing as under : - “4.5 I have carefully studied the assessment order. I have also perused the written submission of the appellant as well as details filed. 'From the assessment order it is obvious that the AO has not appreciated the fact that the definition of business c…

Harsha Impex, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

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

ITA 3351/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.3351/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 M/S. Harsha Impex, The Income Tax Officer, No. 28, Kattur Sadayappan Street, Vs. Non Corporate Ward 4(4), Periamet, Chennai 600 003. Chennai 600 006. [Pan: Aacfh0426K] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. B. Jaisheila, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Sagadevan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.03.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.05.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 5, Chennai Dated 02.11.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Two Effective Grounds In Its Appeal, Viz., (I) The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Overseas Export Commission Of ₹.30,68,879/- Paid To Non Residents Under Section 40(A)(I) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] & (Ii), The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Expenses

For Appellant: Ms. B. Jaisheila, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Sagadevan, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 195(1)Section 40Section 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(vii)

…the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source on such commission paid, wherein, various decisions have been referred including the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre (P) Ltd. v. CIT 4 I.T.A. No.3351/Chny/16 327 ITR 456 (SC). Respectfully following the decision in the case of CIT v. Faizan Shoes Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the disallowance made towards overseas export commission of ₹.30,68,879/- under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is deleted. Thus, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed. 5. The next ground raised in the appeal of the assessee is with regard to the…

DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar vs. M/S. National Aluminium Company Limited, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee i

ITA 339/CTK/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.339 & 340/Ctk/2016 Dcit, Corporate Circle1(2)/ Vs. National Aluminium Company Acit, Circle-2(2), Limited, Bhubaneswar Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.352 & 353/Ctk/2016 & Ita No.374/Ctk/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-11, 2012-13 & 2011-12) National Aluminium Company Vs. Jcit Range-2/ Limited, Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2) Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & Cross Objection No.01/Ctk/2015 & 25/Ctk/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.376/Ctk/14 & Ita No.340/Ctk/2016) (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012 & 2012-2013) National Aluminium Company Vs. Acit, Circle-2(2)/ Limited, Dcit, Corporate Circle- Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, 1(2), Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain/B.K.Mahapatra, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Saad Kidwai, CIT DR
Section 14A

…CO.01/CTK/15&25/CTK/16 assessee claims that no profits of the sum to be remitted is liable to tax at all. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Cen. (P) Ltd. v. CIT (2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in GE India Technology Cen. (P) Ltd. has also considered the judgment in the case of Transmission Corporation of A. P. Ltd. (supra), support of which was taken by the AO in holding that assessee was required to deduct tax u/s.195(1). The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that every remittance would not result in d…

Paradeep Phosphates Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. JCIT, Range-1, Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 560/CTK/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Apr 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri B.K.Mahapatra/A.K.Sabat, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saad Kidwai, CITDR

…ere is no scope for any disallowance ujs.40(a)(i) of the Act. This is a well established principle. It is pertinent to mention that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Cen. (P) Ltd. Vs CIT reported in (2010) 193 Taxman 234(SC); (2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC) has interpreted the provisions of Section 195 of the Act and has held that payment on supply of goods does not attract TDS u/s.195 of the IT Act and section 195 is applicable to the service components and not to the supply components. " Argument of the assessee is accepted because of the following reason. 1. According to the provisions of Se…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Smt. Sangeeta Khanna, New Delhi

ITA 1522/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri U.S. Kochar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, Senior DR
Section 195Section 40Section 40(1)(i)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘G’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1522/Del./2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) ACIT, Circle 27 (1), vs. Smt. Sangeeta Khanna, New Delhi. RZ-A-4, Dwarka Puri, Palam Road, New Delhi. (PAN : ABAPK9156E) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri U.S. Kochar, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Amit Jain, Senior DR Date of Hearing : 19.04.2018 Date of Order : 23.04.2018 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : The appellant, Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 27 (1), New Delhi (hereinafte…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax(International Taxation)-1, Ahmedabad vs. Adani Wilmar Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2642/AHD/2017[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Apr 2018AY 2016-17
Section 2Section 206ASection 90Section 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…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-1, Ahmedabad vs. Adani Port & Special Economic Zone Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2641/AHD/2017[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Apr 2018AY 2016-17
Section 206ASection 90Section 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…