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

Moog Motion Controls Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 184/BANG/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Moog Motion Controls Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Site No.42-43, Doraisanipalya Circle – 4(1)(1), Village, Vs. Bengaluru. Opp. Oracle (Kalyani Magnum), Bilekahalli, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru – 560 076. Pan : Aadcm 3828 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Srinivas K. P, Ca Revenue By : Shri. V. Parithivel, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Srinivas K. P, CAFor Respondent: Shri. V. Parithivel, JCIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 90

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2019-20 M/s. Moog Motion Controls Pvt. Ltd., ACIT, Site No.42-43, Doraisanipalya Circle – 4(1)(1), Village, Vs. Bengaluru. Opp. Oracle (Kalyani Magnum), Bilekahalli, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru – 560 076. PAN : AADCM 3828 J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Srinivas K. P, CA Revenue by : Shri. V. Parithivel, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 20.03.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 08.05.2024 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Membe…

Jcdecaux S.A., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

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

ITA 2473/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. K. M. Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 270ASection 9(1)(vii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI Before Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member Ms. Astha Chandra, Judicial Member ITA No. 2473/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year: 2018-19 JCDECAUX S.A, Vs ACIT, C/o. JCDecaux Advertising India P Circle 2(1)(2), Ltd., Plot No. 153, 3rd Floor, Okhla New Delhi Industrial Estate, Phase-III, New Delhi 110020 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AACCJ 8567 A Assessee by : Sh. K. M. Gupta, Adv. & Ms. Saloni Shital, AR Revenue by : Sh. Om Parkash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 12.04.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 03.05.2024 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The prese…

Deepak Shimoga Padmaraju, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(5), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 239/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Apr 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George George Kshri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, Advocate byFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 90

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2021-22 Deepak Shimoga Padmaraju, The Asst. Director of 12, 3rd Floor, 4th Cross, Income Tax, 14th Main, Adarsha Layout, Vs. ITO, CPC, Hongasandra, Bangalore. Bangalore South, Bommanahalli S.O Bangalore-560 068. PAN : BAQPS 0277 Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee : Smt. Sheetal, Advocate by Revenue by : Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department Date of hearing : 12.03.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 17.04.2024 O R D E R PER SHRI LAXMI PRASAD S…

Uma Maheshwar Rao Vendavelli, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5 (3)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 34/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Sri.Monish Sawkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Subramanian.S, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 90

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “B”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, Vice-President & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member ITA No.34/Bang/2024 : Asst.Year 2020-2021 Uma Maheshwar Rao Vedavelli The Assistant Director of Flat 101 A Block, Income-tax, CPC v. Sai Mitra Meadows. Bangalore. 1st A Cross Kaggadasapura C.V.Raman Nagar Post Bangalore – 560 093. PAN : ACGPV2295Q. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Monish Sawkar, Advocate Respondent by : Sri.Subramanian.S, Addl.CIT-DR Date of Pronouncement : 07.03.2024 Date of Hearing : 07.03.2024 O R D E R Per George George K, Vi…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Continental Foundation Joint Venture, New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the additional ground raised by the assessee under Rule-27 is allowed

ITA 111/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri M. Balaganesh[Assessment Year: 2006-07]

Section 147Section 148Section 40

…eable to tax in Canada and not in India. Therefore, once the said consultation fee is not chargeable to tax in India, the question of deduction of TDS does not arise. He further submitted that, in the case of GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT in 327 ITR 456, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that if the remittance made to a foreign party is not chargeable to tax in India, then there is no need to deduct TDS in terms of Section 195 of IT Act because Section 195 contemplates only that portion of the receipt which is chargeable to tax in India. Hence, once the consultation fee paid to Mr. Surendra Ga…

Continental Foundation Joint Venture, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the additional ground raised by the assessee under Rule-27 is allowed

ITA 2677/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri M. Balaganesh[Assessment Year: 2006-07]

Section 147Section 148Section 40

…eable to tax in Canada and not in India. Therefore, once the said consultation fee is not chargeable to tax in India, the question of deduction of TDS does not arise. He further submitted that, in the case of GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT in 327 ITR 456, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that if the remittance made to a foreign party is not chargeable to tax in India, then there is no need to deduct TDS in terms of Section 195 of IT Act because Section 195 contemplates only that portion of the receipt which is chargeable to tax in India. Hence, once the consultation fee paid to Mr. Surendra Ga…

Sant Tukdoji Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS) Ward 2(4), Bhandara

ITA 204/NAG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri K.K. ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR
Section 201(1)

…s un-rebutted in the assessment findings or in the NFAC’s detailed discussion extracted hereinabove. That being the clinching fact emerging from the case files, we quote hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in GE India Technology Cen. P. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC) that TDS provisions do not apply in absence of the income liable to be assessed in the concerned recipients’ hands. The assessee succeeds in these instant identical sole substantive grounds in very terms. 7 ITA.Nos.202, 203 & 204/NAG./2022 No other ground or argument has been raised before us. 4. These assessee’s three appeals I.T.A.Nos.20…

Sant Tukdoji Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS) Ward 2(4), Bhandara

ITA 203/NAG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri K.K. ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR
Section 201(1)

…s un-rebutted in the assessment findings or in the NFAC’s detailed discussion extracted hereinabove. That being the clinching fact emerging from the case files, we quote hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in GE India Technology Cen. P. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC) that TDS provisions do not apply in absence of the income liable to be assessed in the concerned recipients’ hands. The assessee succeeds in these instant identical sole substantive grounds in very terms. 7 ITA.Nos.202, 203 & 204/NAG./2022 No other ground or argument has been raised before us. 4. These assessee’s three appeals I.T.A.Nos.20…

Sant Tukdoji Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS) Ward 2(4), Bhandara

ITA 202/NAG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri K.K. ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR
Section 201(1)

…s un-rebutted in the assessment findings or in the NFAC’s detailed discussion extracted hereinabove. That being the clinching fact emerging from the case files, we quote hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in GE India Technology Cen. P. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC) that TDS provisions do not apply in absence of the income liable to be assessed in the concerned recipients’ hands. The assessee succeeds in these instant identical sole substantive grounds in very terms. 7 ITA.Nos.202, 203 & 204/NAG./2022 No other ground or argument has been raised before us. 4. These assessee’s three appeals I.T.A.Nos.20…

Marvel Drugs Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO-6(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3626/MUM/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Marvel Drugs Pvt. Ito 6(3)(3), Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 20, Nagin Mahal, Vs. Mumbai – 400 020 82 Vn Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaacm4655N (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Surendra Nijsure, A.R. Revenue By : Smt Mahita Nair, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 21.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/02/.2024 O R D E R Per : Sandeep Singh Karhail: 1. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 11/08/2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Learned Cit(A)”], For The Assessment Year 2006-07, Which In Turn Arose From The Penalty Order Dated 26/03/2013 Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Surendra Nijsure, A.RFor Respondent: Smt Mahita Nair, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 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 fairly 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…

Vipul Parimal Thakore, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 3595/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri.Anuj Krisnadwala.ARFor Respondent: Smt.Usha Gaikwad.Sr. DR
Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 90

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3595 & 3597/Mum/2023 (A.Y:2020-21 & A.Y:2022-23) Vipul Parimal Thakore, Vs. ADIT-CPC, 307,Beach Haven 1, Kautilya Bhavan, Juhu Tara Road, Bandra KurlaComplex, Juhu S.O, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400049. PAN/GIR No. : AAOPT7541H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Shri.Anuj Krisnadwala.AR Respondent by : Smt.Usha Gaikwad.Sr. DR Date of Hearing 12.02.2024 Date of Pronouncement 13.02.2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER BENCH: These are the two appeals filed by the assessee ag…

Mr John Arunkumar Diaz, Mumbai vs. DCIT 19 (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3647/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyaljohn Arunkumar Diaz Vs. Dcit-19(1), 8A, Saahil, Room No. 203, 2 Nd Floor, 14 Altamount Road, Matrumandir, Tardeo, Mumbai-400026 Mumbai-400007 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aecpd6518C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.Mahesh Rajora.ARFor Respondent: Smt.Usha Gaikwad.Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 44ASection 90

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER John Arunkumar Diaz Vs. DCIT-19(1), 8A, Saahil, Room No. 203, 2 nd Floor, 14 Altamount Road, Matrumandir, Tardeo, Mumbai-400026 Mumbai-400007 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ PAN/GIR No: AECPD6518C Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Shri.Mahesh Rajora.AR Respondent by : Smt.Usha Gaikwad.Sr.DR Date of Hearing 14.02.2024 Date of Pronouncement 15.02.2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVANKUMAR GADALE : The appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of National Faceless Appeal Cent…

Power and Energy Consultants India Private Limited, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-19(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3420/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri M. Balaganeshpower & Energy Consultants Vs. Ito, India Pvt. Ltd, Ward-19(1), House No. U-136, Vikas Marg, Delhi Shakarpur, New Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacg3625J Assessee By : Shri Harish Chaudhary, Ca Shri Mohit Chaudhary, Ca Ms. Neetu Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15/02/2024

For Appellant: Shri Harish Chaudhary, CaFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90Section 90ASection 91

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Power and Energy Consultants Vs. ITO, India Pvt. Ltd, Ward-19(1), House No. U-136, Vikas Marg, Delhi Shakarpur, New Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAACG3625J Assessee by : Shri Harish Chaudhary, Ca Shri Mohit Chaudhary, CA Ms. Neetu Jain, CA Revenue by: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 13/02/2024 Date of pronouncement 15/02/2024 O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in ITA No.3420/Del/2023 for AY 2021-22, arises out of the order of the Natio…

Nira vs. Inh Kishoresinh Gehlot, Indiavs.CPC, Bangalore (Present Jurisdiction -Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(3)(2), Ahmedabad), Gujarat

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1068/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1068/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Niravsinh Kishoresinh Cpc बनाम/ Gehlot Bangalore Vs. Shivam Vasant Chowk, Present Jurisdiction - Dharmaj, Petlad Dist Income Tax Officer Anand, Anand, Gujarat Ward 5(3)(2), Ahmedabad 388430 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ajtpg6241P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Balaji V., Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sushil Kumar Katiar, Sr. Dr 01/02/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 08/02/2024 O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal Filed At The Instance Of The Appellant Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.10.2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -3, Chennai (‘Cit(A)’) Arising Out Of The Intimation Order Dated 20.03.2020 Passed By The Assessing Officer, Under Section 143(1) Of The Act For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. We Have Heard The Rival Submissions Made By The Respective Parties & We Have Also Perused The Relevant Materials Available On Record.

For Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Katiar, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 90

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1068/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Niravsinh Kishoresinh CPC बनाम/ Gehlot Bangalore Vs. Shivam Vasant Chowk, Present Jurisdiction - Dharmaj, Petlad Dist Income Tax Officer Anand, Anand, Gujarat Ward 5(3)(2), Ahmedabad 388430 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AJTPG6241P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Balaji V., AR अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant by : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Sushil Kumar Katiar, Sr. DR 01/02/2024 Da…

ACIT, Circle-3(2), Ahmedabad vs. Apex Dye Stuff Industries, Ahmedabad

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2035/AHD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 195Section 195(2)Section 40

…er other establishment in India. There was no liability on the part of the assessee to deduct income tax at source u/s. 195 and the ld. Authorized Representative relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of G. E. India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. 327 ITR 456. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. The contention of the ld. Departmental Representative that the assessee is liable to pay/deduct tax at source as per section 195 appears to be not correct as the CBDT has withdrawn, the circular No. 7 of 2009 dated 22-11-2009. The CIT(A) has rightly tak…

Dy CIT 11 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. Total Oil India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross

ITA 6997/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy&F Shri Amarjit Singhdy. Commissioner Of Vs. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax-11(3)(1) 3Rd Floor, The Leela Room No. 204, Aayakar Galleria, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Andheri (E) Marine Lines Mumbai 400 059 Mumbai – 400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaace2175M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Ajay Kumar Sharma
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40

…. We answer the question referred to the High Court in the affirmative, in favour of the assessees and against the Revenue. ....." 52. Lastly, in the case of GE India Technology Centre Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. reported in (2010) 10 SCC 29 the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had an occasion to consider the ambit and scope of section 195 of the IT Act. After reproduction of the section, as it stood at the relevant time, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as under:- "6. Under Section 195(1), the tax has to be deducted at source from interest (other than interest on securities) or a…

Hcl Technologies Italy S.P.A, Italy vs. ACIT Circle -2(1)(1) International Taxation, New Delhi

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

ITA 596/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

Section 144C(13)

…ce. It is, thus, indisputable that the requirement of deducting tax while making such payment would arise only if payee has the liability to pay tax on such payment. In case of GE India Technology Centre (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2010] 7 taxmann.com 18/193 Taxman 234/327 ITR 456 (SC), this aspect was elaborately discussed by the Supreme Court. It was held that the expression "chargeable under the provisions of the Act" in Section 195(1) shows that the remittance has got to be of a trading receipt, the whole or part of which is liable to tax in India. It was observed that if the tax is not so assesseable, there is no ques…

Hcl Technologies Belgium Bvba, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle -2(1)(1) International Taxation, New Delhi

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

ITA 595/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

Section 144C(13)

…ce. It is, thus, indisputable that the requirement of deducting tax while making such payment would arise only if payee has the liability to pay tax on such payment. In case of GE India Technology Centre (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2010] 7 taxmann.com 18/193 Taxman 234/327 ITR 456 (SC), this aspect was elaborately discussed by the Supreme Court. It was held that the expression "chargeable under the provisions of the Act" in Section 195(1) shows that the remittance has got to be of a trading receipt, the whole or part of which is liable to tax in India. It was observed that if the tax is not so assesseable, there is no ques…

Hcl Mexico S. De R L, Mexico vs. ACIT Circle -2(1)(1) International Taxation, New Delhi

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

ITA 594/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

Section 144C(13)

…ce. It is, thus, indisputable that the requirement of deducting tax while making such payment would arise only if payee has the liability to pay tax on such payment. In case of GE India Technology Centre (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2010] 7 taxmann.com 18/193 Taxman 234/327 ITR 456 (SC), this aspect was elaborately discussed by the Supreme Court. It was held that the expression "chargeable under the provisions of the Act" in Section 195(1) shows that the remittance has got to be of a trading receipt, the whole or part of which is liable to tax in India. It was observed that if the tax is not so assesseable, there is no ques…

Hcl Hongkong Sar Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle -2(1)(1) International Taxation, New Delhi

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

ITA 593/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

Section 144C(13)

…ce. It is, thus, indisputable that the requirement of deducting tax while making such payment would arise only if payee has the liability to pay tax on such payment. In case of GE India Technology Centre (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2010] 7 taxmann.com 18/193 Taxman 234/327 ITR 456 (SC), this aspect was elaborately discussed by the Supreme Court. It was held that the expression "chargeable under the provisions of the Act" in Section 195(1) shows that the remittance has got to be of a trading receipt, the whole or part of which is liable to tax in India. It was observed that if the tax is not so assesseable, there is no ques…