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 372,250 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

DCIT, Chennai vs. Turbo Energy Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 629/CHNY/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 May 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.351/Mds/2013 & Ita Nos.316 & 317/Mds/2014 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Ays 2008-09 & 2009-10

Section 10BSection 10B(8)Section 80I

…exports of the assessee outside India, and not in the nature of Managerial services to apply the provisions of Sec.9(1)(vii) of IT Act. The Ld.CIT(A) relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GE Technological Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT 327 ITR 456. ITA No.351/Mds/2013 & ITA Nos.316 & 317/Mds/2014 ITA Nos.203, 204 & 205/Mds/2014 :- 19 -: 7.4 Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the Department is on appeal before us. 7.5 We heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. The Ld.AR argued that the services rendered by the foreign agent was to canvass the assessee’s p…

Turbo Energy Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 351/CHNY/2013[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 May 2017AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.351/Mds/2013 & Ita Nos.316 & 317/Mds/2014 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Ays 2008-09 & 2009-10

Section 10BSection 10B(8)Section 80I

…exports of the assessee outside India, and not in the nature of Managerial services to apply the provisions of Sec.9(1)(vii) of IT Act. The Ld.CIT(A) relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GE Technological Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT 327 ITR 456. ITA No.351/Mds/2013 & ITA Nos.316 & 317/Mds/2014 ITA Nos.203, 204 & 205/Mds/2014 :- 19 -: 7.4 Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the Department is on appeal before us. 7.5 We heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. The Ld.AR argued that the services rendered by the foreign agent was to canvass the assessee’s p…

Ramlord Apparels, Mumbai vs. ACIT (A) 25(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed in part whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6636/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 May 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S. Ramlord Apparels, Vs. Acit – Ward 25(3), Mumbai 9A, Akurli Road, Kandivali (East), Mumbai – 400 101 Pan/Gir No. Aaafr3183M Appellant) .. Respondent) Acit – Ward 25(3), Vs. M/S. Ramlord Apparels, Mumbai 9A, Akurli Road, Kandivali (East), Mumbai – 400 101 Pan/Gir No. Aaafr3183M Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 40

…d that commission was paid by assessee in respect of its export business to a non- resident in respect of services rendered outside India. No service in respect of which commission was paid were rendered in India. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of GE India 327 ITR 456, wherein it was held that no tax is required to be deducted at source in respect of payment to non-resident whose income is not liable to tax in India. As the commission so paid to non-resident was not liable to tax in India, the assessee was not under obligation to deduct the tax on such payments for the services rendered outside India by such n…

ACIT 17(1), Mumbai vs. Elve Corporation, Mumbai

ITA 3565/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 195Section 195(2)Section 40

…accrue or arise in India, which is paid directly to the non-resident agent/s outside India. This, in fact, is a pre-requisite for the application of section 195, as clarified by the Hon’ble Apex Court in G. E. India Technology Centre (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [2010] 327 ITR 456 (SC), with the Hon’ble Court per CIT vs. Toshoku Ltd. [1980] 125 ITR 525 (SC) having clearly held in the context of commission that income earned by a non-resident for services rendered outside India could not be deemed to accrue or arise in India. The withdrawal of its Circulars Nos. 23 (dated 23.7.1961) and 786 (dated 7.2.2000) by the CBDT vide…

ACIT 17(1), Mumbai vs. Elve Corporation, Mumbai

ITA 3564/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 195Section 195(2)Section 40

…accrue or arise in India, which is paid directly to the non-resident agent/s outside India. This, in fact, is a pre-requisite for the application of section 195, as clarified by the Hon’ble Apex Court in G. E. India Technology Centre (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [2010] 327 ITR 456 (SC), with the Hon’ble Court per CIT vs. Toshoku Ltd. [1980] 125 ITR 525 (SC) having clearly held in the context of commission that income earned by a non-resident for services rendered outside India could not be deemed to accrue or arise in India. The withdrawal of its Circulars Nos. 23 (dated 23.7.1961) and 786 (dated 7.2.2000) by the CBDT vide…

DCIT, Pondicherry vs. Integra Software Services P. Ltd., Pondicherry

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

ITA 1099/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

Section 15CSection 194CSection 195Section 40

…tax at source in respect of non-resident individuals under Article-15 and in respect of payments made to the assessee companies the assessee relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre (P) Ltd. v. CIT (2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC) wherein it was held that obligation regarding the deduction of tax at source arises only on such remittances chargeable under the Income Tax Act. The assessee submitted that the payments made to foreign companies are not chargeable to tax in India and thus TDS is not deductible and accordingly no deduction is required to be made u/s.195 o…

M/S. Sridhar & Co., Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2589/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Feb 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2589/Mds/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Sridhar & Co The Income Tax Officer, J3, J4, Govt. Industrial Estate, V. Non-Corporate Ward 6(3), Madhavaram, Chennai – 34. Chennai – 600 060. Pan : Aalfs6349F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri N. Devanathan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Sahadevan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.01.2017 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.02.2017 आदेश आदेश /O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per N.R.S. Ganesan:

For Appellant: Shri N. Devanathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Sahadevan, JCIT
Section 195

…e when the non-resident agent provides services outside 5 I.T.A. No. 2589/Mds/2016 India on payment of commission. The Madras High Court in fact placed its reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the GE India Technology Cen. (P) Ltd. v CIT, [2010] 327 ITR 456 (SC). However, the assessee has to substantiate that the non-resident agent rendered some kind of services to the assessee either by way of procuring orders or otherwise. In this case, the CIT (Appeals) found, no evidence was available on record for the services rendered by the non-resident agent. When the assessee exported finished leather goo…

M/S Twenty First Century Securities Ltd., Kolkata vs. The ITO, WD-59(4) (TDS), Kolkata

In the result both the appeals are allowed

ITA 464/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ]

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 194ASection 197Section 20Section 201

…hort deduction of tax at source and the certificate u/s 197 of the Act was valid for both the units of the person making payment. Our attention was also drawn to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre P.Ltd. vs CIT 327 ITR 456 (SC) wherein it was held that in case where the AO himself had inferred a lower rate, there is no justification whatsoever for the AO to infer short deduction in respect of similar payments not covered by the certificate. 11. The ld. DR reiterated the stand of the revenue as reflected in the orders of the revenue authorities. ITA Nos.464&465/Ko…

M/S Hero Honda Motors Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2148/DEL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh C.M.Garg & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Honda Motors Ltd, Dcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, Circle-12(1), Vs. New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaacg0812J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. AK Saroha, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 263Section 32Section 37(1)Section 40Section 9

…and stated that when the income of the recipient is not chargeable to tax in India , there is no requirement of tax deduction at source and he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd Vs. CIT 327 ITR 456. iv. He further submitted that the ld Transfer Pricing Officer in case of the assessee has held that payment of royalty, model fees, technical guidance fees, have been held to be at Arm’s Hero Honda Motors Ltd V DCIT 2148/del/2009 A Y 2004-05 Appeal Against Order u/s 263 of The ACT Page 7 of 34 Length for this year. He therefore submitted that…

M/S. A-One Leathers, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3061/CHNY/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3061/Mds/2016. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2007-2008. M/S. A-One Leathers Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Tanners & Exports, Ncw 4(1) No.10/5, Nabhikhan Zubaida Chennai 600 006. Street, Periamet Chennai 600 003. [Pan Aaafa 4576H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 195(1)(i)Section 40Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

…sed Representative strongly assailing the orders of the lower authorities submitted that ld. Assessing Officer in the remand report had specifically stated that the facts in assessee‘s case were similar for that of GE India Technology Centre P. Ltd vs. CIT 327 ITR 456 decided by Hon’ble Apex Court and that of Faizan Shoes (P) Ltd (supra) decided by Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court. Further, according to him the re-assessment was initiated after four years from the end of the impugned assessment year and ITA No. 3061/Mds/2016. :- 7 -: the conditions specified in first proviso of Sec. 147 of the Act was not…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Geo Connect Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 5851/DEL/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 271(1)(c)Section 9(1)(vii)

…Television International Ltd versus ACIT reported in 11 SOT 486 and other decisions listed in the compilation of case laws. (viii) the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GE INDIA TECHNOLOGY CENTRE (P) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR., reported in 327 ITR 456 held that the payer is bound to deduct tax at source only if the income is assessable in India. If income is not so assessable, there is no question of tax at source being deducted. In the case of present assessee , income is not chargeable in the hands of non-resident recipients and therefore the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source a…

M/S Geo Connect Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 127/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 271(1)(c)Section 9(1)(vii)

…Television International Ltd versus ACIT reported in 11 SOT 486 and other decisions listed in the compilation of case laws. (viii) the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GE INDIA TECHNOLOGY CENTRE (P) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR., reported in 327 ITR 456 held that the payer is bound to deduct tax at source only if the income is assessable in India. If income is not so assessable, there is no question of tax at source being deducted. In the case of present assessee , income is not chargeable in the hands of non-resident recipients and therefore the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source a…

DCIT Circle-12 (1) vs. Geo Connect Ltd

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

ITA 2088/DEL/2008[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2017AY 2002-2003

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 271(1)(c)Section 9(1)(vii)

…Television International Ltd versus ACIT reported in 11 SOT 486 and other decisions listed in the compilation of case laws. (viii) the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GE INDIA TECHNOLOGY CENTRE (P) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR., reported in 327 ITR 456 held that the payer is bound to deduct tax at source only if the income is assessable in India. If income is not so assessable, there is no question of tax at source being deducted. In the case of present assessee , income is not chargeable in the hands of non-resident recipients and therefore the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source a…

Geo Convest Ltd vs. DCIT Circle-12 (1)

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

ITA 1927/DEL/2008[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2017AY 2002-2003

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 271(1)(c)Section 9(1)(vii)

…Television International Ltd versus ACIT reported in 11 SOT 486 and other decisions listed in the compilation of case laws. (viii) the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GE INDIA TECHNOLOGY CENTRE (P) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR., reported in 327 ITR 456 held that the payer is bound to deduct tax at source only if the income is assessable in India. If income is not so assessable, there is no question of tax at source being deducted. In the case of present assessee , income is not chargeable in the hands of non-resident recipients and therefore the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source a…

ACIT 8(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Rediff.Com India Ltd, Mumbai

In the results both the appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2586/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Shrikant NamdevFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Jain
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 40

…uction of tax at source cannot arises unless the AO holds that income in the hands of the payee is chargeable to tax in India, especially in view of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre P. Ltd V/s. CIT and Another (2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC). Further, even if the liability of the payee is determined on the basis of retrospective amendments made by Finance Act, 2010 or Finance Act, 2012, even then, the obligation to deduct TDS cannot be created through retrospective legislation in view of detailed judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of New Skies Satellite BV (supra)…

ACIT 8(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Rediff.Com India Ltd, Mumbai

In the results both the appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2585/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Shrikant NamdevFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Jain
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 40

…uction of tax at source cannot arises unless the AO holds that income in the hands of the payee is chargeable to tax in India, especially in view of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre P. Ltd V/s. CIT and Another (2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC). Further, even if the liability of the payee is determined on the basis of retrospective amendments made by Finance Act, 2010 or Finance Act, 2012, even then, the obligation to deduct TDS cannot be created through retrospective legislation in view of detailed judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of New Skies Satellite BV (supra)…

The Commissioner of Income Tax I vs. Mesmer Technologies Ltd

ITTA/673/2016HC Telangana15 Dec 2016

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,M.S.K.JAISWAL

Deloitte Haskins and Sells, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 11(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5097/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 244ASection 40

…T, Mumbai Bench in the case of „Arthur Andersen & Co.‟, he submitted that the ratio of the said decision loses its significance in the light of the subsequent judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of G E Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT, reported in 327 ITR 456. He also referred to ITAT decision of Mumbai Bench in the case of K. S. Aiyer and Co., reported in [2013] 36 taxman.com 317 wherein, this decision of Arthur Andersen & Co. has been distinguished by the coordinate bench. 11. On the issue of payment for professional services to DTT New Zealand and DTT Canada, he submitted that; firstly, the servic…

Deloitte Haskins and Sells, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 11(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5096/MUM/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 244ASection 40

…T, Mumbai Bench in the case of „Arthur Andersen & Co.‟, he submitted that the ratio of the said decision loses its significance in the light of the subsequent judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of G E Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT, reported in 327 ITR 456. He also referred to ITAT decision of Mumbai Bench in the case of K. S. Aiyer and Co., reported in [2013] 36 taxman.com 317 wherein, this decision of Arthur Andersen & Co. has been distinguished by the coordinate bench. 11. On the issue of payment for professional services to DTT New Zealand and DTT Canada, he submitted that; firstly, the servic…

Deloitte Haskins and Sells, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 11(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5094/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 244ASection 40

…T, Mumbai Bench in the case of „Arthur Andersen & Co.‟, he submitted that the ratio of the said decision loses its significance in the light of the subsequent judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of G E Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT, reported in 327 ITR 456. He also referred to ITAT decision of Mumbai Bench in the case of K. S. Aiyer and Co., reported in [2013] 36 taxman.com 317 wherein, this decision of Arthur Andersen & Co. has been distinguished by the coordinate bench. 11. On the issue of payment for professional services to DTT New Zealand and DTT Canada, he submitted that; firstly, the servic…