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, New Delhi vs. M/S. Hcl Comnet Ltd., New Delhi

In the result this ground is dismissed

ITA 5651/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri C.M. Garg :

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha CIT(DR) &
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 263Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…non-resident payee is chargeable to tax in India in the hands of non-resident payee or not. The applicability of section 195 will be decided accordingly. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gee India Technology Vs. CIT 327 ITR 456. 5.7. As regards the chargeability of income under the provisions of the Act in relation to a sum paid to the non-resident assessee, the assessee pointed out that the same is to be determined on the basis of provisions of the Act as well as the provisions of DTAA and the provisions of the Act or the provisions of the DTAA, whichever is more bene…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Hcl Comnet Ltd., New Delhi

In the result this ground is dismissed

ITA 321/DEL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri C.M. Garg :

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha CIT(DR) &
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 263Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…non-resident payee is chargeable to tax in India in the hands of non-resident payee or not. The applicability of section 195 will be decided accordingly. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gee India Technology Vs. CIT 327 ITR 456. 5.7. As regards the chargeability of income under the provisions of the Act in relation to a sum paid to the non-resident assessee, the assessee pointed out that the same is to be determined on the basis of provisions of the Act as well as the provisions of DTAA and the provisions of the Act or the provisions of the DTAA, whichever is more bene…

Hcl Comnet Ltd., New Delhi vs. CIT, New Delhi

In the result this ground is dismissed

ITA 5907/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri C.M. Garg :

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha CIT(DR) &
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 263Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…non-resident payee is chargeable to tax in India in the hands of non-resident payee or not. The applicability of section 195 will be decided accordingly. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gee India Technology Vs. CIT 327 ITR 456. 5.7. As regards the chargeability of income under the provisions of the Act in relation to a sum paid to the non-resident assessee, the assessee pointed out that the same is to be determined on the basis of provisions of the Act as well as the provisions of DTAA and the provisions of the Act or the provisions of the DTAA, whichever is more bene…

ACIT Cir 4(2), Mumbai vs. Jbf Industries Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 5637/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2695/M/11 & I.T.A.No.6209/Mum/11 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:, 2007-08 & 2008-09) M/S. Jbf Industries Limited बनाम/ Addl. Commissioner Of 8Th Floor, Express Tower, Income Tax 4(2) Vs. Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, 6Th Floor Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5637/Mum/13, I.T.A.2765/Mum/11

For Appellant: Dr. K. ShivaramFor Respondent: Shri Alok Johri (CIT-DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(2)(b)

…86 dated 07.02.2000 regarding taxability u/s.195 of the Act, the deduction of tax at source would arose if the payments of commission to non-resident agents are chargeable to tax in India in view of the law settled in GE India Technology Centre Vs. CIT [2010] 327 ITR 456 (SC). It is held that the moment a remittance is made to a non-resident, obligation to deduct tax at source does not arise; it arises only when such remittance is a sum chargeable under Act. The CIT(A) has passed the order by relying upon the above said law held by the Supreme Court. In view of the reasons mentioned above, we are of the view that…

Asst CIT 14(2), Mumbai vs. Venus International, Mumbai

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

ITA 5010/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Office Of The Asstt. Vs. M/S. Venus International, Commissioner Of Income 26/28, Mohan Niwas, 1St Floor, Tax-14(2),Earnest House, Room No. 302, 3Rd Floor, Old Hanuman Lane, Nariman Point, Kalbadevi, Mumbai 400 021. Mumbai-02. Pan: Aaafv 5850B Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By Shri R.A. Dyani Respondent By Shri Naresh Jain Date Of Hearing: 03-05-2016 Date Of Pronouncement:10-08-2016 O R D E R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 195(2)Section 40Section 41

…tion to the AO to that effect for non-deduction of TDS. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT 327 ITR 456 (SC) as the facts of this case are different from the present case and is not relevant to the instant case since in the case of GE India Technology, the issue was taxing the payment which constituted royalty and in the present case, the issue is taxing the commission. 2 ACIT vs. M/s. Venus International 3. On the facts and in the circumstances…

Rathi Super Steel Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO (TDS), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 2490/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2016AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Mr. Ved Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Anima Barnwal, Sr. DR
Section 115ASection 139Section 139A(8)Section 139A(8)(d)Section 200ASection 206ASection 206M

…5 (SC) observed that the provisions of tax withholding i.e. section 195 of the Act would apply only to sums which are otherwise chargeable 9 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, whe…

Gates India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO (TDS), New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 813/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. V. Mehrotra & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri K. L. Chandok, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajsh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 195Section 201Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

…wherein the Hon’ble Court has held that payment made for copyright article would not be liable to tax deduction at source. Ld. A.R. placed reliance upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G E Technologies Centre Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT reported in 327 ITR 456 wherein the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (supra) relied upon by Ld. 6 I.T.A.No.813./Del/2015 CIT(A) has been considered and Hon'ble Supreme Court has reversed the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and held as under: “8. If the contention of the Department that the mome…

Martin Burn Ltd, Kolkata vs. I.T.O WD - 4(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1914/KOL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 40

…th 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…

Sheraton Appearls, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 24(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7607/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2010-11

Section 10Section 115Section 194LSection 195Section 40

…ndia). Considering the contents of the affidavit of the assessee, we find merit in the contention of the assessee because the payments to a non-resident, being covered u/s 195 of the Act and the decision from Hon’ble Apex Court in G.E. India Technology (2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC), the ratio laid down in transmission corporation of AP Ltd. vs CIT (1999) 239 ITR 587, Since, the payees have no place of business in India or otherwise any presence whatsoever in India and since the services by the payees were rendered outside India, in fact no charge by the Revenue of the payee having any place of business/business connect…

Dignity Innovations, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 265/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. M. Karanakuran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Radhakrishnan, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9

…equirement to deduct tax at source under section 195 when the payment by the appellants to the non-resident for all services rendered outside India is not chargeable to tax in India as laid down by the Surpeme Court in the case of GE Technology Centre P Ltd. (327 ITR 456)’’. The Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is in the 3. business of export of garments and filed return of income with total income of "3,94,370/- and the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was issued. In compliance to notices, the ld. Authorised Representative appeared from time to time and f…

DCIT 24(2), Mumbai vs. Unisynth Chemicals, Mumbai

ITA 6699/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit – 24(2), M/S. Unisynth Chemicals, R.No.601, 106-107, Advent Atria, C-13, 6Th Floor, Vs. Chincholi Bunder Road, B.K.C. Bandra(E), Malad (W), Mumbai - 51 Mumbai – 400 064 Pan: Aaafu1724D (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya, A.R. Revenue By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 07.06.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.06.2016 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, D.R
Section 195Section 40

…o the said foreign agent. The payment received by the foreign agent from the assessee was not chargeable to tax in India. He, therefore, relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “GE India Technology Centre (P) Ltd. vs. CIT” (2010) 10 SCC 29 and several other High Courts and Tribunal decisions deleted the disallowance made by the AO. The Revenue, thus, has come in appeal before us. 4. We have heard the rival contentions and have also gone through the records. Admittedly, the commission payment made by the assessee in this case has been made to oversees agent who has no permanent estab…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Sify Technologies Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 859/CHNY/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Dr. M.M.Bhusari, IRS, CITFor Respondent: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(2)Section 148Section 40

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार",लेखा सद"य एवं "ीजी. पवन कुमार,"या"यकसद"यकेसम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 435, 439 & 859/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2001-02, 2006-07 & 2007-08 The Deputy Commissioner Vs. M/s. Sify Technologies Ltd, of Income Tax, TIDEL Park, Large Taxpayer unit, Taramani, Chennai 600 101 Chennai 600 113. [PAN AAACS 9032R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Dr. M.M.Bhusari, IRS, CIT…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Sify Technologies Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 439/CHNY/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Dr. M.M.Bhusari, IRS, CITFor Respondent: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(2)Section 148Section 40

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार",लेखा सद"य एवं "ीजी. पवन कुमार,"या"यकसद"यकेसम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 435, 439 & 859/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2001-02, 2006-07 & 2007-08 The Deputy Commissioner Vs. M/s. Sify Technologies Ltd, of Income Tax, TIDEL Park, Large Taxpayer unit, Taramani, Chennai 600 101 Chennai 600 113. [PAN AAACS 9032R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Dr. M.M.Bhusari, IRS, CIT…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Sify Technologies Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 435/CHNY/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Dr. M.M.Bhusari, IRS, CITFor Respondent: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(2)Section 148Section 40

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार",लेखा सद"य एवं "ीजी. पवन कुमार,"या"यकसद"यकेसम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 435, 439 & 859/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2001-02, 2006-07 & 2007-08 The Deputy Commissioner Vs. M/s. Sify Technologies Ltd, of Income Tax, TIDEL Park, Large Taxpayer unit, Taramani, Chennai 600 101 Chennai 600 113. [PAN AAACS 9032R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Dr. M.M.Bhusari, IRS, CIT…

Tata Advanced Materials Limited

Appeals are allowed

COP/160/2015HC Karnataka03 Jun 2016

Bench: P.B.BAJANTHRI

Section 260

…TDS. Re: Question No. 2 as follows:  that the payments made by assessee to the NTOs18 could not be characterised as royalty, as payment is made to use the process or an equipment; 17 [2010] 327 ITR 456 (SC) 18 Overseas Telecom Operators ITA No.160/2015 C/W ITA Nos. 161/2015,…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Rakesh Anand, New Delhi

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 4453/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri C.M. Garg:Asstt. Yr: 2010-11 Dcit Circle 30(1), Vs. Sh. Rakesh Anand, New Delhi. 3791, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002. Pan: Adapa 4699 L ( Appellant ) (Respondent) Appellant By : Ms. Rakhi Bimal Sr Dr. Respondent By : Shri Jmesh Kuntal Ca Date Of Hearing : 11/05/2016. Date Of Order : 27/05/2016. O R D E R Per S.V. Mehrotra, A.M:

For Appellant: Ms. Rakhi Bimal Sr DRFor Respondent: Shri Jmesh Kuntal CA
Section 194JSection 195Section 40Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

…e carried out in India. It is also pertinent to note that the section 195 of the Act has to be read along with the charging sections 4,5 and 9 of the Act These are the observations made 1n the judgment of Apex Court in the case of GE India vs. CIT reported in 327 ITR 456, for the proposition that provisions relating to deduction of tax applies only to those sums which are chargeable to tax under the Income-Tax Act Hence, no. tax is deductible under section 195 of the Act on commission payments and consequently the expenditure on export commission payable to non-resident for services rendered outside India becomes…

M/S Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. CIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee-company is allowed

ITA 3/BANG/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Te Connectivity India Pvt. Ltd. ‘Te’ Park, 22B, Doddenakundi 2Nd Phase, Industrial Area, Whitefield Road, Bangalore-560048. … Appellant Pan: Aabct 7374 C Vs. Income-Tax Officer (Ltu)(Tds) Bangalore. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Pravin Kishore Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT(DR)
Section 133(6)Section 201Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s.TE Connectivity India Pvt. Ltd. ‘TE’ Park, 22B, Doddenakundi 2nd Phase, Industrial Area, Whitefield Road, Bangalore-560048. … Appellant PAN: AABCT 7374 C Vs. Income-tax Officer (LTU)(TDS) Bangalore. … Respondent Appellant by : Shri Pravin Kishore Prasad, CA. Respondent by : Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT(DR) Date of hearing : 25/04/2016 Date of pronouncement : 25/05/2016 O R D E R Per INTURI RAMA RAO, AM : This is an appeal filed by the assessee-company direc…

M/S Balmer Lawries & Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer(It) WD-1(1), Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 2079/KOL/2014[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Apr 2016AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 M/S Balmer Lawrie & Co. V/S. Income Tax Officer Ltd., 21, N.S.Road, (International Taxation), Kolkata-700 001 Ward-1(1), Aayakar [Pan No. Aabcb 0984 E] Bhawan (Poorva), 2Nd Floor, R. No.215, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata- 700 107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri M.K.Poddar, Sr-Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri C.P.Bhatia, Jcit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 18-02-2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 27-04-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement

Section 195Section 201(1)Section 5(2)(b)

…d settled position in law, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation v. CIT (2009) 314 ITR 309, 313 (SC), which decision was followed and reiterated in GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2010) 327 ITR 456, 463-465 (SC). In Vijay Ship Breaking’s case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly held and observed at page 313 of the Reports that liability to deduct TDS arises ‘only if the tax is assessable in India’. Since tax was not assessable in India, there was no question of TDS being deducted by the assessee. In GE India Technology’s case, the Hon’ble Su…

United Home Entertainment P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 7(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2009-10 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4608/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2016AY 2009-10
Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)

…e as well. There is no estoppel against the statute. As for the question of approaching the tax authorities under section 195(2), the law is now well settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Information Technology Centre Pvt Ltd Vs CIT [(2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC)] which holds that unless the recipient of income has a tax liability in respect of such payments, the person making the payment cannot be saddled with the tax deduction liability just because he did not approach the tax authorities under section 195(2). The grievances raised by the Assessing Officer are thus devoid of any legally sustainable…

DCIT 7(3), Mumbai vs. United Home Entertainment P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2009-10 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4414/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2016AY 2009-10
Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)

…e as well. There is no estoppel against the statute. As for the question of approaching the tax authorities under section 195(2), the law is now well settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Information Technology Centre Pvt Ltd Vs CIT [(2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC)] which holds that unless the recipient of income has a tax liability in respect of such payments, the person making the payment cannot be saddled with the tax deduction liability just because he did not approach the tax authorities under section 195(2). The grievances raised by the Assessing Officer are thus devoid of any legally sustainable…