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

ACIT, Circle - 52, Kolkata vs. Shri Subhotosh Majumdar, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 366/KOL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri S. Srivastava, CITFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 5Section 9Section 9(1)(i)

…uired. The respondent was entitled to rely upon the circulars. In light of the judgments of the Supreme Court in CIT versus Eli Lilly Company (India) Private Limited, (2009) 312 ITR 225 (SC) and G.E India Technologies Centre Private Limited versus CIT, (2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC), once the income was not exigible or chargeable to tax, TDS was not required to be deducted. Money paid to the third parties, who did not have any office or permanent establishment in India, was exempt and not chargeable to tax. Thus on the said payments or income, TDS was not required to be deducted. We also note that the payments in questi…

DCIT, Circle-52, Kolkata vs. Sri Subhotosh Majumder . S. Jamumbder &Co, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 1629/KOL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri S. Srivastava, CITFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 5Section 9Section 9(1)(i)

…uired. The respondent was entitled to rely upon the circulars. In light of the judgments of the Supreme Court in CIT versus Eli Lilly Company (India) Private Limited, (2009) 312 ITR 225 (SC) and G.E India Technologies Centre Private Limited versus CIT, (2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC), once the income was not exigible or chargeable to tax, TDS was not required to be deducted. Money paid to the third parties, who did not have any office or permanent establishment in India, was exempt and not chargeable to tax. Thus on the said payments or income, TDS was not required to be deducted. We also note that the payments in questi…

ACIT, Circle - 52, Kolkata vs. Shri Subhotosh Majumder, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 2058/KOL/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri S. Srivastava, CITFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 5Section 9Section 9(1)(i)

…uired. The respondent was entitled to rely upon the circulars. In light of the judgments of the Supreme Court in CIT versus Eli Lilly Company (India) Private Limited, (2009) 312 ITR 225 (SC) and G.E India Technologies Centre Private Limited versus CIT, (2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC), once the income was not exigible or chargeable to tax, TDS was not required to be deducted. Money paid to the third parties, who did not have any office or permanent establishment in India, was exempt and not chargeable to tax. Thus on the said payments or income, TDS was not required to be deducted. We also note that the payments in questi…

Macoma Hardwares, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 25(3)), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6211/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2015AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Ishwar Prakash RathiFor Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 195(1)Section 200Section 201Section 221Section 40

…es not apply when no income is found to be taxable in India, therefore, there was no reason for making any disallowance under provisions of Section 40(a)(i) in view of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of G.E.India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd., 327 ITR 456. There are also judicial pronouncements supporting this proposition, which are reported in 10 ITR 501(Trib), 86 ITD 102 and 10 ITR 147(Trib). 8. Respectfully following the above decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, High Courts and ITAT Benches, we do not find any merit in the action of lower authorities for the disallowance of foreign commission on…

Elve Corporation, Mumbai vs. ACIT 12(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes, and the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6279/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 4108/Mum/2012 & 6279/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Elve Corporation Asst. Cit-12(3), बनाम/ Elve Chambers, Green Street, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafe 4847 R ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6229/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Asst. Cit-12(3), Elve Corporation बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Elve Chambers, Green Street, Vs. Mumbai Fort, Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafe 4847 R (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती/Assessee) : राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri M. C. Naniwadekar "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Vivek Anand Perapurna सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 21.08.2015 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 20.11.2015 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: These Are Set Of Three Appeals For Two Consecutive Years, Being Assessment Years (A.Ys.) 2008-09 & 2009-10, By The Assessee & The Revenue Respectively

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Anand PerapurnaFor Respondent: Shri M. C. Naniwadekar
Section 143(3)Section 172Section 195Section 195(2)Section 250(6)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 Cir 12(3), Mumbai vs. Elve Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes, and the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6229/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 4108/Mum/2012 & 6279/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Elve Corporation Asst. Cit-12(3), बनाम/ Elve Chambers, Green Street, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafe 4847 R ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6229/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Asst. Cit-12(3), Elve Corporation बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Elve Chambers, Green Street, Vs. Mumbai Fort, Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafe 4847 R (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती/Assessee) : राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri M. C. Naniwadekar "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Vivek Anand Perapurna सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 21.08.2015 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 20.11.2015 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: These Are Set Of Three Appeals For Two Consecutive Years, Being Assessment Years (A.Ys.) 2008-09 & 2009-10, By The Assessee & The Revenue Respectively

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Anand PerapurnaFor Respondent: Shri M. C. Naniwadekar
Section 143(3)Section 172Section 195Section 195(2)Section 250(6)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…

Elve Corporation, Mumbai vs. ACIT 12(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes, and the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4108/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 4108/Mum/2012 & 6279/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Elve Corporation Asst. Cit-12(3), बनाम/ Elve Chambers, Green Street, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafe 4847 R ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6229/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Asst. Cit-12(3), Elve Corporation बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Elve Chambers, Green Street, Vs. Mumbai Fort, Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafe 4847 R (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती/Assessee) : राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri M. C. Naniwadekar "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Vivek Anand Perapurna सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 21.08.2015 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 20.11.2015 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: These Are Set Of Three Appeals For Two Consecutive Years, Being Assessment Years (A.Ys.) 2008-09 & 2009-10, By The Assessee & The Revenue Respectively

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Anand PerapurnaFor Respondent: Shri M. C. Naniwadekar
Section 143(3)Section 172Section 195Section 195(2)Section 250(6)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 7(2), Mumbai vs. Synergy Lifestyle P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5440/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of Income - M/S. Synergy Lifestyle Pvt. 7(2), Ltd., Room No.624, 130, Dinshaw Petit Lane, M.K. Road, Kalachowky, Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400 033 Pan: Aafcs 1753A

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Neil Philip, D.R
Section 10(34)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner of Income - M/s. Synergy Lifestyle Pvt. 7(2), Ltd., Room No.624, 130, Dinshaw Petit Lane, M.K. Road, Kalachowky, Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400 033 PAN: AAFCS 1753A (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Jitendra Jain, A.R. Revenue by : Shri Neil Philip, D.R. Date of Hearing : 07.10.2015 Date of Pronouncement : 30.10.2015 O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by t…

At & S India Private Limited, Karnataka vs. DCIT-Range-11, Kolkata

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

ITA 2305/KOL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Oct 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 4(1)Section 4(2)Section 40Section 90(2)

…tion to withhold tax (TDS) under the Act in respect of income chargeable to tax u/s. 4(1) of the Act. The following case law were also submitted:- i) Lufthansa Cargo India Private Ltd 140 Taxman 1 (AT-Del) ii) GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd.v. (2010) CIT 327 ITR 456 (SC) iii) CIT v. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd. 142 ITR 493 (Cal) iv) Van Oord ACZ India (P) Ltd. v. CIT (2010) TIOL 187 v) CIT v. Fortis Health Care Ltd. 181 Taxman 257 vi) DCIT v. Lazard India Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 41 SOT 72 (Mum) vii) Nathpa Jhakri Joint Venture v. ACIT (2010) 5 ITR 75 (Mum) viii) Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIt (2009) 313 ITR (AT) 263…

D.C.I.T Cir - 11, Kolkata vs. M/S at & S India Pvt Ltd, Karnataka

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

ITA 1160/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Oct 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 4(1)Section 4(2)Section 40Section 90(2)

…tion to withhold tax (TDS) under the Act in respect of income chargeable to tax u/s. 4(1) of the Act. The following case law were also submitted:- i) Lufthansa Cargo India Private Ltd 140 Taxman 1 (AT-Del) ii) GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd.v. (2010) CIT 327 ITR 456 (SC) iii) CIT v. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd. 142 ITR 493 (Cal) iv) Van Oord ACZ India (P) Ltd. v. CIT (2010) TIOL 187 v) CIT v. Fortis Health Care Ltd. 181 Taxman 257 vi) DCIT v. Lazard India Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 41 SOT 72 (Mum) vii) Nathpa Jhakri Joint Venture v. ACIT (2010) 5 ITR 75 (Mum) viii) Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIt (2009) 313 ITR (AT) 263…

Dharam Chand Chaudhry, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 33, Kolkata

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

ITA 1220/KOL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Dr. Bishnu Sankar Kundu, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 194CSection 40

…under section 195(2) in case of payments to non residents and assessee’s failure to do so is to be visited with consequences for non deduction at source, the law is now settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre Pvt Ltd Vs CIT (327 ITR 456) wherein Their Lordships have categorically held that, “where a person responsible for deduction is fair ly certain, then he can make his own determination as to whether the tax was deductible at source and, if so, what should be the amount thereof”. The plea of the revenue authorities to the effect that where the assessee does not move an applic…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sigma Corporation India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 6229/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. G. C. Gupta, Hon’Ble & Sh. O.P.Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Sujit Kumar, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Baljeet Singh, CA
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)Section 9Section 9(1)(i)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. G. C. Gupta, Hon’ble Vice President And Sh. O.P.Kant, Accountant Member ITA No.6229/Del./2012 Asstt. Year : 2009-10 DCIT, Vs Sigma Corporation India Ltd., Circle-8(1), R-561, new Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi Shankar Road, New Delhi PAN: AABCS8062L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by : Sh. Sujit Kumar, Sr. DR Respondent by : Sh. Baljeet Singh, CA Date of Hearing : 30.09.2015 Date of Pronouncement :14.10.2015 ORDER PER O.P.KANT, AM. This appeal of the Revenue emanates from the order of learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XI, New De…

Asst CIT 16(3), Mumbai vs. Beni Impex, Mumbai

ITA 2503/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2015AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Samir Tekriwal–DR
Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 195Section 254(1)Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ खंडपीठ मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI “B” BENCH सव"ी राजे", लेखा सद" एवं श""जीत डे, "ाियक सद" Before S/Sh. Rajendra,Accountant Member & Saktijit Dey,Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं/.ITA No.2503/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year-2010-11 ACIT-Range-16(3) M/s. Beni Impex Matru Mandir, 2nd floor 237/38, 2nd floor, New Sonal Link Room No.206, Tardeo Road Vs Estate, Bldg. No.2, Link Road, Mumbai-400 007. Malad (W) Mumbai-400 044. PAN: AAAFB 1498 D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Bhupendra Shah राज" की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Samir T…

M/S Vodafone East Ltd.(Formerly Known As Vodafone Essar East Limited), Kolkata vs. A.D.I.T Range - 7, Kol., Kolkata

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

ITA 1864/KOL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Sept 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 194ISection 40

…: 2009-2010 & Assessment Year : 2010-2011 & Assessment Year : 2010-2011 Page 38 of 56 provisions and as such the assessee is under no obligation to deduct tax at source u/s 195 of the Act. The case law of GE India Technology Centre Pvt Ltd reported in (2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC) relied upon by the assessee in this regard is well placed and directly in favour of the assessee on this principle. 9.4. We hold that the payment of roaming charges does not fall under the ambit of Fee for Technical Services as no human intervention is required for the same and hence the income of non-resident telecom operator is not charge…

Director of Income Tax vs. M/S Ericsson Communications Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/106/2002HC Delhi04 Sept 2015
For Appellant: Mr Rohit Madan and Mr Zoheb HossainFor Respondent: Mr M.S. Syali, Sr. Advocate with Mr Mayank
Section 195Section 201Section 23Section 260A

…lding tax only if credit of such amount reflects accrued income in the hands of the payee, which is chargeable to tax under the Act. 13. The Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax and Another (2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC) explained the statutory scheme as under:- 2015:DHC:7339-DB ITA 106/2002 Page 13 of 24 “One more aspect needs to be highlighted. Section 195 falls in Chapter XVII which deals with collection and recovery. Chapt…

Dy DIT vs. M/S Infosys Bpo Ltd

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue and the cross

ITA 1143/BANG/2013[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Respondent: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT
Section 115ASection 200A(1)Section 200A(1)(b)Section 206ASection 246A

…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…

ACIT, Chennai vs. M.M.Forgings Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2679/CHNY/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2679/Mds/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011 -2012)

For Appellant: Shri. Krishnamurthy, CITFor Respondent: Shri. Philip George, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 801A(4)Section 80I

…not have any permanent establishment or permanent business place in India • The commission was remitted to the non-residents directly outside India. 9. He relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre P. Ltd. v CIT (2010) 327 ITR 456 wherein it was held that tax deducted at source obligations u/s 195(1) arises only if the payment is chargeable to tax in the hands of the non-resident recipient. Therefore, merely because a person has not deducted tax at source or a remittance abroad it cannot be inferred that the person making the remittance, namely the assessee in the instant…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Isis Exports P Ltd., Chennai

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 1964/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Feb 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri S. S. Godara] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1963/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri N. Madhavan, JCITFor Respondent: Mrs. S. Srividya, CA
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 195(2)Section 40

…es are rendered abroad and the agents have no PE in India. Therefore, there is no requirement to deduct TDS on these payments. For this purpose reliance is also placed on the decision of Apex court in the case of GE India Technology Cen. P Ltd. v. CIT [2010] (327 ITR 456) (SC)wherein it was held as under: • Section 195 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Deduction of tax at source - Payment to non-resident- • Whether 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) i.e., chargeable under sections 4) 5…

ACIT, Chennai vs. India Shoes Exports P. Ltd., Chennai

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 1963/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Feb 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri S. S. Godara] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1963/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri N. Madhavan, JCITFor Respondent: Mrs. S. Srividya, CA
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 195(2)Section 40

…es are rendered abroad and the agents have no PE in India. Therefore, there is no requirement to deduct TDS on these payments. For this purpose reliance is also placed on the decision of Apex court in the case of GE India Technology Cen. P Ltd. v. CIT [2010] (327 ITR 456) (SC)wherein it was held as under: • Section 195 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Deduction of tax at source - Payment to non-resident- • Whether 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) i.e., chargeable under sections 4) 5…

Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/S Himalya International Ltd

ITA/437/2014HC Delhi16 Oct 2014

…ected by the Tribunal, relying upon decision of the Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre P. Ltd. Vs. 2014:DHC:5420-DB ITA 437/2014 Page 7 of 8 Commissioner of Income Tax, (2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC), on the ground that M/s Global Reliance Inc. was not liable to pay tax under the provisions of the Act and, therefore, the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source. It appears that the Departmental Representative had invoked and relied on Section 195 of the Act. Before us the revenue, as per the grounds of appeal, seeks to rely…