Sahara India (Firm) v. Commissioner of Income Tax and anr (15) (234 CTR 153)

Q: What is Sahara India (Firm) v. Commissioner of Income Tax and anr (15) authority for?

Disallowance under section 40(a)(i) can be made only when there is a liability to deduct tax under section 195 and such tax has not been deducted. The phrase 'chargeable under the provisions of the Act' in section 195(1) is crucial and requires the payment to be income taxable in India.

Q: How many judgments cite Sahara India (Firm) v. Commissioner of Income Tax and anr (15)?

25 judgments on BharatTax cite Sahara India (Firm) v. Commissioner of Income Tax and anr (15) (234 CTR 153), spanning 2015 to 2019.

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

…uired to be deducted at source, the section does not get attracted and no disallowance can be made under this section. iii. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G. E. India Technology Center India Pvt. Ltd Vs. CIT & Anr [234 CTR 153 (SC)], wherein the Apex Court observed that disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) can be made when there 'is a liability to deduct tax, and is not deducted. Thus, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that sec 40(a)(i) ensures effective compliance of Sec 195 by disallowing the sum paid without withholding of tax. The Supreme Court have laid lot of emphasis on the…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S JAS FORWARDING WORLD PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

ITA 3222/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

…uired to be deducted at source, the section does not get attracted and no disallowance can be made under this section. iii. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G. E. India Technology Center India Pvt. Ltd Vs. CIT & Anr [234 CTR 153 (SC)], wherein the Apex Court observed that disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) can be made when there 'is a liability to deduct tax, and is not deducted. Thus, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that sec 40(a)(i) ensures effective compliance of Sec 195 by disallowing the sum paid without withholding of tax. The Supreme Court have laid lot of emphasis on the…

M/S. TATA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1433/PUN/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1433/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S. Tata Technologies Limited, Plot No.25, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Hingewadi, Pune – 411057 …. Pan: Aaact3092N Vs. The Dy. Director Of Income Tax …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent (International Taxation)-Ii, Pune

For Appellant: S/Shri Dhanesh Bafna and Arpitha ChoudaryFor Respondent: S/Shri Vivek Aggarwal and Mukesh Jha

Section 115ASection 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 90(2)

…n 195 of the Act which provides for withholding of tax in relation to payments made to Non-resident or foreign company, taxable in India. Reference was made to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in GE India Technology Centre (P) Ltd. reported in 234 CTR 153 (SC), wherein it has been held that the words “chargeable under the provisions of the Act’ used in section 195(1) of the Act clearly indicate that the payments made to Non-resident should partake the character of income chargeable to tax, in order to trigger withholding of tax. The assessee claimed that similar proposition was laid down by the Ho…

SWANSTON MULTIPLEX CINEMAS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 11(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1135/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2005-06 Swanston Multiplex Cinemas Acit, Private Limited, Circle-11(1), बनाम/ 9Th Floor, Viraj Towers, W.E. R. No.467, Vs. Highway Next To Andheri Aayakar Bhavan, Flyover Andheri (East), M. K. Road, Mumai-400093 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan No.:-Aafcs6295K

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 40

…or share paid to a non-resident company specifically exclude/consideration for the sale, distribution or exhibition of cinematographic films. It is also noted that Hon'ble Apex Court in G.E. India Technology Cen. (P.) Ltd. vs CIT (2010) 327 ITR 456 /(2010) 234 CTR 153 (SC) vide order dated 09/09/2010 held as under:- The most important expression in s. 195(1) consists of the words "chargeable under the provisions of the Act". A person paying interest or any other sum to a non-resident is not liable to deduct tax if such sum is not chargeable to tax under the IT Act. For instance, where there is no obligation…

M/S CATHODIC CONTROL CO LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/14294/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Sahara India (Firm) v. Commissioner of Income Tax and anr (15)

What is Sahara India (Firm) v. Commissioner of Income Tax and anr (15) authority for?

Also referred to as

Judgments citing Sahara India (Firm) v. Commissioner of Income Tax and anr (15)

JAS FORWARDING WORLDWIDE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S JAS FORWARDING WORLD PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

M/S. TATA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

SWANSTON MULTIPLEX CINEMAS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 11(1), MUMBAI

M/S CATHODIC CONTROL CO LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

SYNDICATE BANK vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

CENTRAL POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE vs. UNION OF INDIA

ADITHYA BIZORP SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

M/S PROCESS PUMPS (I) PVT LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

M/S HOTEL FISHLAND vs. UNION OF INDIA

M/S TEE ENN ENTERPRISES vs. UNION OF INDIA

M/S NEW MEDIA COMPANY vs. UNION OF INDIA

SRI CHANDRAKAR K KAMATH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

M/S PRAKASH BUS CORPORATION PVT LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

MINTENT SERVICED APARTMENTS PVT LTD., vs. UNION OF INDIA

M/S. LAKSHMINIRMAN BANGALORE PVT.LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

DR V. NARAYANASWAMY vs. UNION OF INDIA

M/S TEACHERS CO OPERATIVE BANK vs. UNION OF INDIA

M/S PRODIGY TECHNOVATIONS PVT LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

M/S. K K BROTHERS vs. UNION OF INDIA