Oord ACZ India (P) Ltd. v. CIT

323 ITR 130High Court2010#3416 most cited

What is Oord ACZ India (P) Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Where the recipient of income is not liable to pay tax in India, the payer has no obligation to deduct tax at source. Consequently, no disallowance under section 40(a)(i) can be made for failure to deduct such tax.

35

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Van Oord ACZ India (P) Ltd v. CIT · section 40(a)(i) · section 190 · section 191 · payer obligation · recipient liability · taxability · TDS

Also reported as

189 Taxmann 232

Sections most often in play

Section 115JBSection 143(3)Section 194CSection 194JSection 195Section 200(1)Section 250Section 4

Issues it is cited on

section 9(i)(vii)section 194jsection 44aasection 40(a)(i)withholding taxsection 9(1)(vii)business connectionsection 195section 194htransactional net margin methodfees for technical servicespermanent establishment

Judgments citing Oord ACZ India (P) Ltd. v. CIT

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 901/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

…s not mitigated even in a situation where the payer has failed to deduct tax therefrom. [Refer sections 190 and 191 of the Act] Reference in this regard is made to the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Van Oord ACZ India (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 323 ITR 130, wherein the High Court held that if in the hands of the recipient it is held that the sum was not chargeable to tax, there cannot be cast any obligation on the payer to deduct tax at source. To the same effect is the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of DIT vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd: 365 ITR 560. In view of the aforesaid, no disall…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1024/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

…s not mitigated even in a situation where the payer has failed to deduct tax therefrom. [Refer sections 190 and 191 of the Act] Reference in this regard is made to the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Van Oord ACZ India (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 323 ITR 130, wherein the High Court held that if in the hands of the recipient it is held that the sum was not chargeable to tax, there cannot be cast any obligation on the payer to deduct tax at source. To the same effect is the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of DIT vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd: 365 ITR 560. In view of the aforesaid, no disall…

ACIT, Circle-61(1), New Delhi vs. Subramaniam Hariharan, New Delhi

ITA 600/DEL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Tanya Sharma, Sr. Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 40

…eliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre (P) Ltd vs CIT: 327 ITR 456 (SC) and Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd vs CIT: 432 ITR 471 (SC); Van Oord ACZ India (P) Ltd vs CIT: 323 ITR 130 (Del); Estel Communications (P) Ltd: 217 CTR 102 (Del); CIT vs ICL Shipping Ltd: 315 ITR 195 (Mad); Jindal Thermal 5 Power: 182 Taxman 252 (Kar) – SLP of department dismissed in 196 Taxman 495 (SC). 6. In this regard here itself we find it relevant to reproduce Section 195 of the Act which reads as under: “Section 195 (1) Any person responsibl…

Subramaniam Hariharan, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-63(1), New Delhi

ITA 9832/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 40

…eliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre (P) Ltd vs CIT: 327 ITR 456 (SC) and Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd vs CIT: 432 ITR 471 (SC); Van Oord ACZ India (P) Ltd vs CIT: 323 ITR 130 (Del); Estel Communications (P) Ltd: 217 CTR 102 (Del); CIT vs ICL Shipping Ltd: 315 ITR 195 (Mad); Jindal Thermal 5 ITAs No.600/Del/2020, 9832/Del/2019 & 2134/Del/2018 Power: 182 Taxman 252 (Kar) – SLP of department dismissed in 196 Taxman 495 (SC). 6. In this regard here itself we find it relevant to reproduce Section 195 of the Act which read…

Anand and Anand, New Delhi vs. JCIT, Range- 37, New Delhi

ITA 2134/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 40

…eliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre (P) Ltd vs CIT: 327 ITR 456 (SC) and Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd vs CIT: 432 ITR 471 (SC); Van Oord ACZ India (P) Ltd vs CIT: 323 ITR 130 (Del); Estel Communications (P) Ltd: 217 CTR 102 (Del); CIT vs ICL Shipping Ltd: 315 ITR 195 (Mad); Jindal Thermal 5 Power: 182 Taxman 252 (Kar) – SLP of department dismissed in 196 Taxman 495 (SC). 6. In this regard here itself we find it relevant to reproduce Section 195 of the Act which reads as under: “Section 195 (1) Any person responsible f…

ACIT Circle 13(1), New Delhi vs. Lx Pantos India Private Limited, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 912/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M.Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(i)

…es. Moreover, the said payment is not chargeable to tax under section 195. When the amount is not chargeable to tax in India, provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Act are not applicable. 5.2 Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Van Oord ACZ India P. Ltd. (323 ITR 130) has held that liability to deduct tax at source arises only when the sum paid to the non-resident was chargeable to tax in India. Once that was chargeable to tax, it was not for the assessee to find out how much amount of receipt was chargeable to tax, but it was the obligation of the assessee to deduct the tax at source on the entire sum paid b…

ACIT Circle 13(1), New Delhi vs. Lx Pantos India Private Limited, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 911/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M.Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(i)

…es. Moreover, the said payment is not chargeable to tax under section 195. When the amount is not chargeable to tax in India, provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Act are not applicable. 5.2 Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Van Oord ACZ India P. Ltd. (323 ITR 130) has held that liability to deduct tax at source arises only when the sum paid to the non-resident was chargeable to tax in India. Once that was chargeable to tax, it was not for the assessee to find out how much amount of receipt was chargeable to tax, but it was the obligation of the assessee to deduct the tax at source on the entire sum paid b…

Addl.CIT, Special Range-1, New Delhi vs. Dinesh Kumar Mathur, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1016/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Mathur, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 206ASection 260ASection 40

…re genuine reimbursement of expenses and there was no profit element and hence no I.T.A. No.1016/Del/2019 10 income liable to tax was contained therein. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Van Oord ACZ India (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [2010] 323 ITR 130 (Delhi) held that liability to deduct at source arises only when the sum is paid to the non-resident was chargeable to tax. Once that was chargeable to tax, it was not for the assessee to find out how much amount of the receipts was chargeable to tax, but it was the obligation of the assessee to deduct the tax at source on the entire sum paid by…

ITO (Intl. Taxation), New Delhi vs. M/S Asian Hotels North Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 210/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.C. Swain, CIT-DR
Section 115ASection 195Section 195(2)Section 9(1)(vi)

…e would arise in as much as tax at source is to be deducted on income and not on expenses. Global management expenses were reimbursement of ITO vs Asian Hotels North Ltd. 22 cost and as per the decision in the case of Van Oord ACZ India (P) Ltd. v. CIT [2010] 323 ITR 130/189 Taxman 232 (Delhi) tax was not deductible.” 14. Considering the issue involved from this perspective also, in our view, no income can be said to accrue or arise to HCSL in India making the assessee liable to withhold tax under section 195 of the Act. We accordingly uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and reject the appeal of the Revenue. 15.…

Rane Engine Valves Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1496/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1175, 1495 & 1496/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 M/S.Rane Engine Valves Ltd., V. The Dy. Commissioner- “Maithri” No.132, Of Income Tax, Cathedral Road, Corporate Circle-5(3), Chennai-600 086. Chennai. [Pan: Aaact 1279 M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.03.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.03.2022

For Respondent: Mr.P.V.Pradeep Kumar, CIT
Section 10Section 195Section 35DSection 37Section 40A

…residents for non-deduction of Tax at source. 2.1 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in relying on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Van Oord ACZ India Pvt Ltd v Addl CIT (112 ITD 79) which has been reversed by the Hon'ble High Court in 323 ITR 130 (Del). 2.2 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that appellant has not proved as to whether the payment made to the non-residents was a professional fee or a commission without appreciating that the assessing officer has not disputed the payment of professional fee to non-residents. 2.3 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appea…

Rane Engine Valves Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1495/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1175, 1495 & 1496/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 M/S.Rane Engine Valves Ltd., V. The Dy. Commissioner- “Maithri” No.132, Of Income Tax, Cathedral Road, Corporate Circle-5(3), Chennai-600 086. Chennai. [Pan: Aaact 1279 M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.03.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.03.2022

For Respondent: Mr.P.V.Pradeep Kumar, CIT
Section 10Section 195Section 35DSection 37Section 40A

…residents for non-deduction of Tax at source. 2.1 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in relying on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Van Oord ACZ India Pvt Ltd v Addl CIT (112 ITD 79) which has been reversed by the Hon'ble High Court in 323 ITR 130 (Del). 2.2 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that appellant has not proved as to whether the payment made to the non-residents was a professional fee or a commission without appreciating that the assessing officer has not disputed the payment of professional fee to non-residents. 2.3 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appea…

Rane Engine Valves Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1175/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1175, 1495 & 1496/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 M/S.Rane Engine Valves Ltd., V. The Dy. Commissioner- “Maithri” No.132, Of Income Tax, Cathedral Road, Corporate Circle-5(3), Chennai-600 086. Chennai. [Pan: Aaact 1279 M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.03.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.03.2022

For Respondent: Mr.P.V.Pradeep Kumar, CIT
Section 10Section 195Section 35DSection 37Section 40A

…residents for non-deduction of Tax at source. 2.1 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in relying on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Van Oord ACZ India Pvt Ltd v Addl CIT (112 ITD 79) which has been reversed by the Hon'ble High Court in 323 ITR 130 (Del). 2.2 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that appellant has not proved as to whether the payment made to the non-residents was a professional fee or a commission without appreciating that the assessing officer has not disputed the payment of professional fee to non-residents. 2.3 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appea…

Chander Mohan Lal, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle - 61(1), New Delhi

ITA 1869/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

Section 194CSection 40A(2)

…Insurance Co. Ltd: 309 ITR 356 (AAR) xv. GE India Technology Centre (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT : 327 ITR 456 (SC) xvi. Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT : Civil (Appeal) No. 8733-8734 of 2018 (SC). xvii. Van Oord ACZ India (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT : 323 ITR 130 (Del.) xviii. Estel Communications (P) Ltd. : 2017 CTR 102 (Del) xix. CIT Vs. ICL Shipping Ltd.”315 ITR 195 (Mad.) xx. Jindal Thermal Power : 182 Taxman 252 (Kar)- SLP of Department dismissed in 196 Taxman 495 (SC) xxi. NQA Quality Systems…

M/S Glaxosmithkline Asia Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Chandigarh

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

ITA 532/CHANDI/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jul 2021AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.AdvFor Respondent: Smt. C. Chandrakanta, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “ए” च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘A’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI R. L. NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 2453/Del/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 M/s GlaxoSmithKline Asia Pvt. Ltd., The D.C.I.T.(LTU) , बनाम 24-25 Floor, One Horizon Centre, New Delhi. Golf Course Road, DLF Phase-5, Gurgaon. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AABCS3237R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.532/Chd/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 M/s GlaxoSmithKline Asia Pvt. Ltd., The D…

Jas Forwarding Worldwide Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011 – 12 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1687/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor advocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Barnwal, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 40Section 92CSection 92C(2)

…der this Act' under Section 195 of the Act states that sums payable to non-resident is not liable to deduct tax if such sum is not chargeable to tax. This view has been upheld by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Van Oord ACZ India (P) Ltd. vs CIT, 323 ITR 130; and by Hon'ble Supreme Court ruling in the case GE India Technology Cent. (P) Ltd (2010); 327 ITR 456. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that person paying interest or any other sum to non-resident is not liable to deduct tax if such sum is not chargeable to tax. Thus, in the absence of any 'business connection, there was no obligation on the A…

Jas Forwarding Worldwide Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011 – 12 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2484/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor advocateFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Pal [CIT] – DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 40Section 92CSection 92C(2)

…der this Act' under Section 195 of the Act states that sums payable to non-resident is not liable to deduct tax if such sum is not chargeable to tax. This view has been upheld by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Van Oord ACZ India (P) Ltd. vs CIT, 323 ITR 130; and by Hon'ble Supreme Court ruling in the case GE India Technology Cent. (P) Ltd (2010); 327 ITR 456. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that person paying interest or any other sum to non-resident is not liable to deduct tax if such sum is not chargeable to tax. Thus, in the absence of any 'business connection, there was no obligation on the A…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Mr Gurcharan Singh, Delhi

In the result appeal of the Id

ITA 133/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shuklaa N D Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Acit, Shri Gurcharan Singh, Vs. 646, 1St Floor, Circle-47(1), Gali Ganteshwar, Katra Neel, Chandni Chowk, New Delhi. Delhi - 110 006. Pan: Atbps9241F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Patwari, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. S. Negi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 197Section 40

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER A N D SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through Video Conferencing) ACIT, Shri Gurcharan Singh, Vs. 646, 1st Floor, Circle-47(1), Gali Ganteshwar, Katra Neel, Chandni Chowk, New Delhi. Delhi - 110 006. PAN: ATBPS9241F (Appellant) (Respondent) Department by : Shri S. S. Negi, Sr. DR Assessee by : Shri Mayank Patwari, CA Date of Hearing 08/04/2021 Date of pronouncement IP/06/2021 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI. A. M. 1. This appeal is filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 47 (1),…

M/S Ecorys Nederlands B.V., Delhi vs. ADIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 6494/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleasstt. Year 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT (DR)
Section 40

…Ld. CIT(A) is in accordance with the established legal position on the issue. 49 M/s. Ecorys Nederlands vs ADIT 3.10 Further the Ld. CIT(A) in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Van Oord ACZ India (P) Ltd versus CIT (2010) 323 ITR 130 (del) has held that the sum payable to the nonresidents was not chargeable to income tax in their hands and thus the assessee was not liable for deduction of tax at source on such payment under the provisions of section 195 and no disallowance under section 40(a)(i) could be made. 3.11 We find that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dis…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Grant Thornton India LLP, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6489/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6489/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S Grant Thornton India Llp, Tax, Circle-52(1), L-41, Connaught Circus, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacfg9740K Assessee By : Sh. Sh. Vinod Bindal, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.07.2019 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

For Appellant: Sh. Sh. Vinod Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 40Section 90

…. In our opinion, the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is in accordance with the established legal position on the issue. 3.10 Further the Ld. CIT(A) in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Van Oord ACZ India (P) Ltd versus CIT (2010) 323 ITR 130 (del) has held that the sum payable to the nonresidents was not chargeable to income tax in their hands and thus the assessee was not liable for deduction of tax at source on such payment under the provisions of section 195 and no disallowance under section 40(a)(i) could be made. 3.11 We find that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dis…

Jas Forwarding Worldwide Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3296/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year:2007-08

For Respondent: Shri Robin Rawan, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

…make it clear that liability to deduct tax at source arises only when the sum payable to the non-resident is chargeable to tax. This view has also been followed by the jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of Van Oord ACZ India (P) Ltd. v CIT (2010) 323 ITR 130(Del): 189 Taxman 232( Del) 230 CTR(Del) 365. On the issue as to whether section 195(1) arises only if the payment is chargeable to true in the hands of the recipient, I find that the issue is now covered and settled by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Cent. (P.) Ltd. (2010) 327 ITR 456 wherein the Hon'b…