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.

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 456)

ITO 28(2)(3), Navi Mumbai vs. Natraj Mohan Kanchan, Navi Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 824/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 824/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Income Tax Officer 28(2)(3) Natraj Mohan Kanchan 3Rd Floor, Tower No.6 (Prop. M/S Snk Trading & Exports) बनाम/ 336, Grohitam Building Vashi Railway Station Complex Vs. Plot No.14B, Sec-19 Vashi Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703 Mumbai – 400 703 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Afjpk-4775-N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Subodh L.Ratnaparkhi,Ld.ARFor Respondent: Suman Kumar, Ld.DR

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40

…can be termed as technical in nature. The agent has only acted as commission agent for procuring sales orders aboard. 3.8 The scope and ambit of section 195 has been explanation by the Hon. Supreme Court in GE India Technology Centre (P) Ltd. - Vs - CIT & Anr,327 ITR 456 (SC) (210). In the said case, the term “any other sum chargeable under the provision of Act" in section 195 is explained. The Hon. Supreme Court held that, if payment is made in respect of the amount which is not chargeable to tax under the provisions of Act, TDS is not liable to be deducted. 3.9 the Hon. Delhi High Court in the case of CIT –vs-…

Airport Authority of India, New Delhi vs. ADIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 74/DEL/2014[2013-14 (F.Y. 2012-13)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2017

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri H.P. Aggarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Dudaja, Sr.DR

Section 195Section 195(2)

…he Act. 7. However, the ld. CIT(A) was also not satisfied with the explanation given by the assessee. Relying on various decisions including the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. vs. 9 CIT reported in 327 ITR 456, he held that as per the provisions of section 195(1), liability to deduct tax at source arises when sum payable to a non- resident is chargeable to tax in India in the hands of the non-resident. Thereafter, he proceeded to examine as to whether the payment made by the assessee to the non-resident MITRE are chargeable to tax in India in the han…

ACIT, Bhubaneswar vs. Indian Metals & Ferro Alloys Ltd, Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 73/CTK/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 195Section 195(1)Section 40

…Section 195 of the Income tax Act and failure to withhold will render the payment non- deductible under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act is contrary to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of GE India Technology Centre (P) Ltd. v. CIT: 327 ITR 456 (SC), wherein over-ruling the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.: 320 ITR 209 (Kar), it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the provisions of section 195 of the Act are attracted only if the payments made to the non-resident recipient are chargeable to tax in India and h…

Indian Metals and Ferro Alloy Ltd, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 47/CTK/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 195Section 195(1)Section 40

…Section 195 of the Income tax Act and failure to withhold will render the payment non- deductible under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act is contrary to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of GE India Technology Centre (P) Ltd. v. CIT: 327 ITR 456 (SC), wherein over-ruling the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.: 320 ITR 209 (Kar), it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the provisions of section 195 of the Act are attracted only if the payments made to the non-resident recipient are chargeable to tax in India and h…

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 920/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 147Section 194HSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 9

…In the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘A’, New Delhi Before : Shri Amit Shukla, Judicial Member And Shri L.P. Sahu, Accountant Member ITA No. 920/Del./2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., vs. Addl. CIT, Range -4, Taxation Sector, 1st floor, Bharat New Delhi. Sanchar Bhawan, Janpath, New Delhi. (PAN- AABCB5576G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Tarandeep Singh, C.A. Respondent by Smt. Aparna Karan, CIT/DR Date of Hearing 16.08.2017 Date of Pronouncement 25.10.2017 ORDER Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A)-35, Ne…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Mukesh Bhasin, New Delhi

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

ITA 5934/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri G.N. Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR

Section 195Section 40

…rgeable to tax in the hands of recipient under the provisions of the Act, there can be no question of applicability of section 195 and, in turn, disallowance u/s 40(a)(i). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in GE India Technology Centre P. Ltd. vs. CIT & Anr. (2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC) has held that if the remittance to non-resident is not taxable, there is no question of tax at source being deducted. We are confronted with a situation in which the assessee paid commission to a non-resident agent for rendering services abroad. Such a commission is obviously not chargeable to tax in the hands of the recipient as has been h…

ITO, Chennai vs. Indo Overseas Films, Chennai

In the result, revenue’s appeals in ITA No

ITA 1423/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. N. Madhavan, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. T. Banusekar, CA

Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

…apply and consequently the sums are not chargeable to tax in India and do not warrant deduction of tax at source U/s. 195 of the Act. In this regard, we find that the Hon'ble supreme Court in the case GE India Technology Cen. (P) Ltd Vs CIT reported in (2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC) had held that TDS :-6-: ITA Nos. 1422&1423/Mds/2017 obligation would arise on the assessee only when the sum is chargeable to tax in India U/s. 4,5, & 9 of the Act. 7.1 view of the our aforesaid findings in the facts and circumstances of the case and respectfully following the judicial precedent relied upon hereinabove, we hold that the as…

ITO, Chennai vs. Indo Overseas Films, Chennai

In the result, revenue’s appeals in ITA No

ITA 1422/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. N. Madhavan, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. T. Banusekar, CA

Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

…apply and consequently the sums are not chargeable to tax in India and do not warrant deduction of tax at source U/s. 195 of the Act. In this regard, we find that the Hon'ble supreme Court in the case GE India Technology Cen. (P) Ltd Vs CIT reported in (2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC) had held that TDS :-6-: ITA Nos. 1422&1423/Mds/2017 obligation would arise on the assessee only when the sum is chargeable to tax in India U/s. 4,5, & 9 of the Act. 7.1 view of the our aforesaid findings in the facts and circumstances of the case and respectfully following the judicial precedent relied upon hereinabove, we hold that the as…

ACIT 18(1), Mumbai vs. Dezens Products, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5503/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Ramlal Negi (Jm)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 40

…iability by the payer was to make an application to the Assessing Officer under section 195(2) for non-deduction of tax or for deduction at a lower rate. However this decision has been overruled by the Supreme Court in the case of GE (India) Technology Centre 327 ITR 456 (SC). It has been held that where a person responsible for deduction is fairly certain then, he can make his own determination as to whether tax is deductible at source. Hence Samsung Electronics is no more good law. (iv) Similar issues have been considered recently by Kolkata ITAT in the case of Andaman Sea Food Pvt. Ltd. in ITA 8 M/s. Dezens…

Swanston Multiplex Cinemas P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 11(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1135/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2005-06 Swanston Multiplex Cinemas Acit, Private Limited, Circle-11(1), बनाम/ 9Th Floor, Viraj Towers, W.E. R. No.467, Vs. Highway Next To Andheri Aayakar Bhavan, Flyover Andheri (East), M. K. Road, Mumai-400093 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan No.:-Aafcs6295K

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 40

…ent was made, there was no such provision in the Act, therefore, reliance was placed upon the decision from Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Krishnaswamy S. Pd. Vs UOI (2006) 281 ITR 305 (SC). It was also pleaded that the decision in the case of G.E. India (327 ITR 456)(SC) favours the case of the assessee. Our attention was invited to section 40(a) of the Act. 3.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Before adverting further, we are reproducing hereunder the relevant provision of section 40(a) of the Act:- 40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in s…

Ambica Steels Ltd., Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeal is allowed

ITA 3893/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kantin Ita No. 3893/Del/2014 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ambica Steels Ltd. Vs. Addl. Cit C-54/1, Wazirpur Industrial Range -1, Area, Delhi New Delhi (Applicant) (Respondent) (Pan: Aaaca9942Q) Assessee By: Shri S.K. Jain, Ca Shri Nitin Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri R.C. Danday, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13/09/2017 Date Of Pronouncement 03/10/2017

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.C. Danday, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 40Section 9

…ITA No. 3893/Del/2014 Assessment Year: 2010-11 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH “A” BENCH NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER In ITA No. 3893/Del/2014 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ambica Steels Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT C-54/1, Wazirpur Industrial Range -1, Area, Delhi New Delhi (Applicant) (Respondent) (PAN: AAACA9942Q) Assessee by: Shri S.K. Jain, CA Shri Nitin Jain, CA Revenue by: Shri R.C. Danday, Sr. DR Date of hearing 13/09/2017 Date of pronouncement 03/10/2017 ORDER PER AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the asse…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Tractors and Farm Equipments Ltd., Chennai

In the result , the assessee’s appeal is treated as partly allowed and

ITA 1922/CHNY/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate

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

…red and utilized outside India and hence income does not accrue I arise or deemed to accrue in India. Hence deduction of TDS does not arise. 2.3 The Appellant relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of G E Technology Centre V. CIT, reported in 327 ITR 456(SC).” 5. Before the CIT(A),the assessee submitted that it has been exporting tractors to various countries in Asia, America, Europe and Africa. In USA, it has a subsidiary by name TAFE USA Inc through which tractors are sold in :-4-: I.T.A. N0. 1264/Mds/2016 & 1922/Mds/2016 USA. The assessee has entered in to an agreement TAFE USA Inc. for ass…

Tractors and Farm Equipments Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result , the assessee’s appeal is treated as partly allowed and

ITA 1264/CHNY/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate

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

…red and utilized outside India and hence income does not accrue I arise or deemed to accrue in India. Hence deduction of TDS does not arise. 2.3 The Appellant relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of G E Technology Centre V. CIT, reported in 327 ITR 456(SC).” 5. Before the CIT(A),the assessee submitted that it has been exporting tractors to various countries in Asia, America, Europe and Africa. In USA, it has a subsidiary by name TAFE USA Inc through which tractors are sold in :-4-: I.T.A. N0. 1264/Mds/2016 & 1922/Mds/2016 USA. The assessee has entered in to an agreement TAFE USA Inc. for ass…

M/S. Panasonic Energy India Co.Ltd, Vadodara vs. The Pr. CIT-2, Baroda

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1534/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 263Section 40Section 5Section 9

…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…

M/S. Inox India Ltd., Baroda vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1391/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 195Section 195(1)Section 263Section 40Section 5

…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…