GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

Income Tax Officer, Delhi vs. Hcl Technologies Limited, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh

…e recipient company, there would be no obligation for the payer i.e. assessee company to deduct tax at source u/s 195 of the Act. This proposition is already settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology India Ltd Vs. CIT reported in 327 ITR 456 (SC). ITA Nos. 1372 to 1377/Del/2024 HCL Technologies Ltd 7. In view of the aforesaid observations and respectfully following the judicial precedents relied upon herein above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld CIT(A) for each of the assessment year under consideration. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue for all the…

Income Tax Officer, New Delhi vs. Hcl Technologies Limited, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh

…e recipient company, there would be no obligation for the payer i.e. assessee company to deduct tax at source u/s 195 of the Act. This proposition is already settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology India Ltd Vs. CIT reported in 327 ITR 456 (SC). ITA Nos. 1372 to 1377/Del/2024 HCL Technologies Ltd 7. In view of the aforesaid observations and respectfully following the judicial precedents relied upon herein above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld CIT(A) for each of the assessment year under consideration. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue for all the…

Qai India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 21(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 Qai India Ltd. Vs. Dcit 1010-12, Ansal Towers, 38, Circle -21(2) Nehru Place, New Delhi- New Delhi 110019 Pan No.Aaacq0883C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Ved Jain, Ar Supriya Mehta, Ar Respondent By Sh. Amaninder Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 04/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 10/07/2024 Order Per Sudhir Kumar, Jm:

…n record. 8. In the Judgement of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs Motif India Infotech (P) Ltd the Hon’ble Gujrat High court held that; “In the case of G.E India Technology Center P. Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.. reported in [2010] 327 ITR 456 (SC), the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court was that we remittance of money to a non resident would not give rise to the requirement of deducting tax at source, unless such remittance contains wholly or partly taxable income. It is true that after such judgment was rendered, the legislature had amended Section 195 of the Act by inserting Expla…

Manav Malik, Noida vs. ACIT Circle 5(2)(2), Gautam Budh Nagar

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2019-20 Manav Malik, Vs Acit, B-146, Sector-19, Circle 5(2)(2), Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh – 201 301. Uttar Pradesh. Pan: Apzpm1646L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Kirti Bindal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2024

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : E : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2019-20 Manav Malik, Vs ACIT, B-146, Sector-19, Circle 5(2)(2), Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh – 201 301. Uttar Pradesh. PAN: APZPM1646L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Ms Kirti Bindal, CA Revenue by : Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 29.04.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 27.06.2024 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: This appeal is preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 28.09.2022 of the Commissioner…

Bharti Airtel Ltd vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

…brokerage, were not satisfied in the instant case and Section 194H ought not to have been invoked? d) Whether the lower authorities ought to have appreciated that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre (P) Ltd. v. CIT: (2010) 10 SCC 29 has held that the tax is required to be deducted only on a sum which is treated as income and in the present case the discounts offered do not constitute income of the franchisee? e) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the free air time provided to distributors was in the nature of commission out of which tax was deductible un…