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

Isys Softech Private Limited, Jaipur vs. CIT (A), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 528/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. G. M. MehtaFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 195(1)Section 271CSection 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…t, they were not liable to be taxed in India. Other relevant recent decisions that payment for software is not Royalty and therefore, "when no tax is chargeable under the Act" no TDS is required, are: (1) GE India Technology Centre P. Ltd Vs. CIT & Anr (2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC) (2) Anusha Investment Ltd. Vs. ITO (Intt. Taxation) (2015) 378 ITR 621 (Mad) (3) CIT (Intt. Taxation) Vs. Micro Focus Ltd. (2021) 431 ITR 136 (Del) (4) CIT (Intt. Taxation) vs. Gracemac Corp. (No.1)(2023) 456 ITR 124 (Del); (5) CIT VS. Gracemac Corp. (2023) 456 ITR 135 (SC); (6) CIT (Intt. Taxation) Vs. ZTE Corp. (2023) 454 ITR 541 (SC) Gro…

DCIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi vs. Campus Eai India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 355/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

…t have a PE in India. Hence, payment made on account of the 'App' is outside the ambit of the said Article. 7.7 The scope and ambit of Section 195 of the Act has been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in GE India Technology Centre (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 327 ITR 456. In the said case the expression "any other sum chargeable under the provisions of the Act" in Section 195 of the Act was elucidated and explained. It was held that if payment is made in respect of the amount which is not chargeable to tax under the provisions of Act, tax at source (TDS, for short) is not liable to be deducted. Further, the provi…

Hindustan Epc Company Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 11(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 7112/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshhindustan Epc Company Ltd, Vs. Acit, 239, Okhla Industrial Estate, Circle-11(2), Phase-Iii, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aafcm9606E Acit, Vs. Hindustan Epc Company Ltd, Circle-11(2), 239, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi Phase-Iii, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aafcm9606E

For Appellant: Sh. Satyen Sethi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Vasanta, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…aced on the following decisions by the assessee:- a) Decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Toshuku Ltd reported in 125 ITR 525 (SC) and b) Decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Center (P) Ltd vs CIT reported in 327 ITR 456 (SC) 6.3. The ld. CIT(A) observed that Shye International Ltd is a resident of Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region. The commission is paid to them for procurement of solar modules from various Chinese companies. The benefit of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) was not available between India and Hong Kong and that the DTAA came into…

ACIT, Circle- 11(2), New Delhi vs. Hindustan Epc Company Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 6985/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshhindustan Epc Company Ltd, Vs. Acit, 239, Okhla Industrial Estate, Circle-11(2), Phase-Iii, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aafcm9606E Acit, Vs. Hindustan Epc Company Ltd, Circle-11(2), 239, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi Phase-Iii, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aafcm9606E

For Appellant: Sh. Satyen Sethi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Vasanta, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…aced on the following decisions by the assessee:- a) Decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Toshuku Ltd reported in 125 ITR 525 (SC) and b) Decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Center (P) Ltd vs CIT reported in 327 ITR 456 (SC) 6.3. The ld. CIT(A) observed that Shye International Ltd is a resident of Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region. The commission is paid to them for procurement of solar modules from various Chinese companies. The benefit of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) was not available between India and Hong Kong and that the DTAA came into…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Caterpillar India Private Ltd., Chennai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1031/CHNY/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1031/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Acit M/S. Caterpillar India Pvt.Ltd. बनाम/ 7Th Floor, International Tech Park, Taramani Road, Central Circle-3(3), Vs. Chennai. Taramani,Chennai-600 113. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcc-4615-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & Cross Objection No.1/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.1031/Chny/2022) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Caterpillar India Pvt.Ltd. Acit बनाम 7Th Floor, International Tech Park, Central Circle-3(3), Taramani Road, Taramani, Chennai. / Vs. Chennai-600 113 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcc-4615-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant/Cross Objector) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Revenue By : Shri V. Nandakumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr !"थ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao (Ca)- Ld.Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04-10-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09-10-2023 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao (CA)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी” "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी वी. दुगा" राव, "ाियक सद! एवं माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ&वाल ,लेखा सद! के सम)। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.1031/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) ACIT M/s. Caterpillar India Pvt.Ltd. बनाम/ 7th floor, International Tech Park, Taramani Road, Central Circle-3(3), Vs. Chennai. Taramani,Chennai-600 113. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AABCC-4615-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & Cross Objection No.1/Chny/2023 (In ITA…

Kraft Foods Group Brands Llc, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-3(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2495/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Us Raising Following Grounds In Its Appeal: -

Section 143(2)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 234BSection 270ASection 9(1)(vii)

…a receipt under the head royalty or FTS to be taxable in India, it is sufficient to ascertain that transaction resulted in accrual of income in India. 11.10 The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology CHCen. (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT (327 ITR 456) is relevant here to counter the argument of the assessee that mere reimbursement cannot be taxed in India. The context of the decision is the "taxability in India' as in whether the income in question is accrued or arisen in India. In the present case, the services are rendered in India and therefore, there is no dispute that the income did accr…

Gaurav Singh, Satna vs. ITO-Ward Satna, Satna

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 90/JAB/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Sept 2023AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant& Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalegaurav Singh, Ito, C/0,Rajiv Narayan Singh, Aayakar Bhawan, Parijat Niwas, Civil Lines, Satna-485001. Satna-485001. Madhya Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Appellant Respondent Pan: Bbdps8879Q

For Appellant: Shri.Sapan Usrethe,Advocate. ARFor Respondent: Shri. Shiv Kumar. Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 90Section 91

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER& SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Gaurav Singh, ITO, C/0,Rajiv Narayan Singh, Aayakar Bhawan, Parijat Niwas, Civil Lines, Satna-485001. Satna-485001. Madhya Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Appellant Respondent PAN: BBDPS8879Q Appellant by : Shri.Sapan Usrethe,Advocate. AR Respondent by : Shri. Shiv Kumar. Sr.DR Date of hearing :18.09.2023 Date of pronouncement : 20.09.2023 ORDER PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM: The appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals (CIT(A)…

Cae Simulation Training P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes subject to the direction contained in para 9 above

ITA 2573/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: S/Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

…that the tax is required to be withheld in respect of payments made to a non resident only if such payment is chargeable to tax in India. Support is drawn by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre (P) Ltd. vs. CIT 327 ITR 456 (SC) and Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Accordingly, the disallowance of the payment of Rs. 1,03,45,058/- made to Symbiotics Ltd. UK under section 40(a)(i) for non deduction of tax at source is hereby deleted. Ground No. 3 to 3.7 are decided in favour of the assessee. 15 20. In the result, the appeal of the assessee…

ACIT(Ltu-1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tcs Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5904/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 10ASection 115JSection 14ASection 19Section 40Section 90(1)(a)

…ct. On the other hand, at the heart of section 195 of the Act is the fact that deductions can only be made if the non-resident assessee is liable to pay tax under the provisions of the Act in the first place. GE INDIA TECHNOLOGY CENTRE (P.) LTD. V. CIT 120101 327 ITR 456 (SC) explained. PILOM v. CIT 120201425 ITR 312 (SC) explained and distinguished. The "person" spoken Of in section 195(1) of the Art is liable to make the necessary deductions only if the non-resident is liable to pay tax as an asses-see under the Act, and not otherwise. The tax deductor must take into consideration the effect of the DTAA provisi…

Tata Consultancy Serrvices Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-1, Mumbai

ITA 5199/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 10ASection 115JSection 14ASection 19Section 40Section 90(1)(a)

…ct. On the other hand, at the heart of section 195 of the Act is the fact that deductions can only be made if the non-resident assessee is liable to pay tax under the provisions of the Act in the first place. GE INDIA TECHNOLOGY CENTRE (P.) LTD. V. CIT 120101 327 ITR 456 (SC) explained. PILOM v. CIT 120201425 ITR 312 (SC) explained and distinguished. The "person" spoken Of in section 195(1) of the Art is liable to make the necessary deductions only if the non-resident is liable to pay tax as an asses-see under the Act, and not otherwise. The tax deductor must take into consideration the effect of the DTAA provisi…

Citicorp Trustee Company Ltd As Trustee for Fccb Issued by Jindal Saw Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Int Taxation)-2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 784/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 784/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Citicorp Trustee Company बिधम/ Dcit (International Ltd. As Trustee For Fccb Taxation)-2(1)(1) Vs. Issued By Jindal Saw Ltd. 17Th Floor, 1713, Air India Citigroup Centre, Canada Building, Nariman Point, Square, Canary Wharf Mumbai-400021. London E14 5Lb United Kingdom. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecc0452D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anish Thackar/Nikhil Tiwari/Lekh Mehta Revenue By: Shri Amit Kumar Soni (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer (Ao) Dated 19.01.2023 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice The Ground No. 2 Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Legal Issue Against The Action Of The Ao To Have Reopened The Assessment U/S 147 Of The Act Without Satisfying The Essential Condition Prescribed Under The Act; & Therefore Contends That The Action Of The Ao Is Ab-Initio-Void. 3. In Order To Examine The Legal Issue Raised By The Assessee, It Is Necessary To Look Into The Reasons Recorded By Ao To Reopen The Assessment Which Is Reproduced As Under: -

For Appellant: Shri Anish Thackar/NikhilFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar Soni (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 201(1)Section 5(2)(b)Section 6

…risen in India in the hands of recipient/non-resident, there is no obligation on the part of the respondent-assessee to deduct tax at source on payment of interest as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Cen. (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT, 327 ITR 456 (SC) followed by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. vs. DCIT, 383 ITR 59 (Karnataka). We find that the order of the ld. CIT(A) is in consonance with the legal position discussed above. Therefore, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is just, proper and reasoned order. Thus, we do not find any reas…

Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward-2(1), Chennai vs. M/S. Eshakti, Com Private Limited, Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 529/CHNY/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.528/Chny/2022 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.529/Chny/2022 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Ito M/S.Eshakti.Com Pvt. Limited बनाम/ Corporate Ward-2(1) 54/444, Capital Building, Vs. 3Rd Floor, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 018. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaace-6772-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S.Senthil Kumaran (Cit)-Ld.Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri V.Ravichandran (Fca)- Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-07-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-08-2023 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri S.Senthil Kumaran (CIT)-Ld.DRFor Respondent: Shri V.Ravichandran (FCA)- Ld. AR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…ich would not be subject to tax in India in terms of Article 7 read with Article 5 of Double Taxation Avoidance Treaty between India and USA. Reliance was placed inter- alia, on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in GE India Technology Centre P. Ltd. vs. CIT (327 ITR 456) to support the submissions that the income should be chargeable to tax for applicability of Sec.195. Since the expenses were incurred outside India on reimbursement basis without any mark-up, there was no requirement of TDS and disallowance so made by Ld. AO would not be justified. In the alternative, it was submitted that the amounts paid were…

Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward-2(1), Chennai vs. M/S. Eshakti, Com Private Limited, Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 528/CHNY/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.528/Chny/2022 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.529/Chny/2022 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Ito M/S.Eshakti.Com Pvt. Limited बनाम/ Corporate Ward-2(1) 54/444, Capital Building, Vs. 3Rd Floor, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 018. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaace-6772-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S.Senthil Kumaran (Cit)-Ld.Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri V.Ravichandran (Fca)- Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-07-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-08-2023 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri S.Senthil Kumaran (CIT)-Ld.DRFor Respondent: Shri V.Ravichandran (FCA)- Ld. AR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…ich would not be subject to tax in India in terms of Article 7 read with Article 5 of Double Taxation Avoidance Treaty between India and USA. Reliance was placed inter- alia, on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in GE India Technology Centre P. Ltd. vs. CIT (327 ITR 456) to support the submissions that the income should be chargeable to tax for applicability of Sec.195. Since the expenses were incurred outside India on reimbursement basis without any mark-up, there was no requirement of TDS and disallowance so made by Ld. AO would not be justified. In the alternative, it was submitted that the amounts paid were…

ACIT Circle-4(1), New Delhi vs. Ball Beverage Packaging (India) Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed and the

ITA 6680/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2023AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40

…es on non-availability of Form 15CA and CB. Accordingly, we find that ld. CIT (A) has taken a correct view in the matter. Moreover, ld. Counsel of the assessee placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of GE India Technology vs. CIT 327 ITR 456 which also supports the case of the assessee. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the ld. CIT (A) on this issue. 10 ITA Nos.6607 & 6680/Del./2019 17. Apropos issue of addition on account of disallowance of loss on foreign currency fluctuation amounting to Rs.6,18,30,027/- : AO notice that the assessee company has debited loss of Rs.13,03,12,998…

Ball Beverage Packaging (India) Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-4(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed and the

ITA 6607/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2023AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40

…es on non-availability of Form 15CA and CB. Accordingly, we find that ld. CIT (A) has taken a correct view in the matter. Moreover, ld. Counsel of the assessee placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of GE India Technology vs. CIT 327 ITR 456 which also supports the case of the assessee. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the ld. CIT (A) on this issue. 10 ITA Nos.6607 & 6680/Del./2019 17. Apropos issue of addition on account of disallowance of loss on foreign currency fluctuation amounting to Rs.6,18,30,027/- : AO notice that the assessee company has debited loss of Rs.13,03,12,998…

Ambibuzz Technologies LLP, Mumbai vs. ITO, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1084/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2023AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri Rajesh SanghviFor Respondent: Shri Dharmvir D Yadav (Sr. DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1084/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Ambibuzz Technologies बिधम/ Income Tax CPC, LLP Bengaluru. Vs. Office No. 1410/1411, 14th Floor, One Lodha Place Senapati Bapat Marg, Opp Lodha Supremus, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013.. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : ABOFA3714G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Rajesh Sanghvi Revenue by: Shri Dharmvir D Yadav (Sr. DR) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 26/06/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 1…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for all assessment years

ITA 1367/CHNY/2013[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1668 To 1670/Chny/2011 & िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2006-07 To 2008-09 & 2009-10 The Dy. Commissioner- V. M/S.Royal Sundaram – Of Income Tax, Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Large Taxpayer Unit, 21, Patullos Road, Chennai. Chennai-600 002. [Pan: Aabcr 7106 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Mr.M.Swaminathan, Sr.St. Counsel Assessee By : Mr.Sandeep Bagmar, Adv. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.06.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2023

For Appellant: Mr.Sandeep Bagmar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.M.Swaminathan
Section 14ASection 37Section 40

…ce, payments made to NRR are not chargeable to tax in India, question of application u/s.195(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, does not arise and this principle is explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. G.E.India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd., 327 ITR 456 (SC), where it was held that application to deduct TDS arises only if income of non-resident is chargeable to tax in India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that expression ‘chargeable’ under the provisions u/s.195(1) of the Act says that remittance has got to be treated as receipt, whole or part of which is liable to tax in India, if tax is no…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1692/CHNY/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1692/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 The Dy. Commissioner- V. M/S.United India- Of Income Tax, Insurance Co. Ltd., Large Taxpayer Unit, 24, Whites Road, Chennai. Chennai-600 014. [Pan: Aaacu 5552 C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Mr.M.Swaminathan, Sr. Standing Counsel Assessee By : Mr.S.Sundararaman, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.06.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2023

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sundararaman, CAFor Respondent: Mr.M.Swaminathan
Section 14ASection 37Section 40Section 4A

…the disallowance u/s. sec40(a)(i) to 15%. 2.3 The Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that such arbitrary estimation of profit element, is a clear violation of the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G.E India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd.,(327 ITR 456). 2.4 The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that in the above cited case, the Supreme Court has clearly laid down that in cases where the payment made is a composite payment in which certain proportion of payment has an element of Income' chargeable to tax in India and if the assessee is not sure as to what is the taxable portion of the sum p…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for all assessment years

ITA 1670/CHNY/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1668 To 1670/Chny/2011 & िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2006-07 To 2008-09 & 2009-10 The Dy. Commissioner- V. M/S.Royal Sundaram – Of Income Tax, Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Large Taxpayer Unit, 21, Patullos Road, Chennai. Chennai-600 002. [Pan: Aabcr 7106 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Mr.M.Swaminathan, Sr.St. Counsel Assessee By : Mr.Sandeep Bagmar, Adv. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.06.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2023

For Appellant: Mr.Sandeep Bagmar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.M.Swaminathan
Section 14ASection 37Section 40

…ce, payments made to NRR are not chargeable to tax in India, question of application u/s.195(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, does not arise and this principle is explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. G.E.India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd., 327 ITR 456 (SC), where it was held that application to deduct TDS arises only if income of non-resident is chargeable to tax in India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that expression ‘chargeable’ under the provisions u/s.195(1) of the Act says that remittance has got to be treated as receipt, whole or part of which is liable to tax in India, if tax is no…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for all assessment years

ITA 1669/CHNY/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1668 To 1670/Chny/2011 & िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2006-07 To 2008-09 & 2009-10 The Dy. Commissioner- V. M/S.Royal Sundaram – Of Income Tax, Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Large Taxpayer Unit, 21, Patullos Road, Chennai. Chennai-600 002. [Pan: Aabcr 7106 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Mr.M.Swaminathan, Sr.St. Counsel Assessee By : Mr.Sandeep Bagmar, Adv. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.06.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2023

For Appellant: Mr.Sandeep Bagmar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.M.Swaminathan
Section 14ASection 37Section 40

…ce, payments made to NRR are not chargeable to tax in India, question of application u/s.195(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, does not arise and this principle is explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. G.E.India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd., 327 ITR 456 (SC), where it was held that application to deduct TDS arises only if income of non-resident is chargeable to tax in India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that expression ‘chargeable’ under the provisions u/s.195(1) of the Act says that remittance has got to be treated as receipt, whole or part of which is liable to tax in India, if tax is no…