Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 195, Section 37(1), Section 115JB, Section 90, Section 40(a)(i), Section 10AA.

Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh v. CIT

Q: How many judgments cite Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh v. CIT?

243 judgments on BharatTax cite Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh v. CIT (239 ITR 587), spanning 2009 to 2026.

239 ITR 587Supreme Court of India1999#357 most cited

What is Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh v. CIT authority for?

The Supreme Court lays down principles for deducting tax at source (TDS) under Section 195 on payments to non-residents, including aspects of income deemed taxable in India and the application of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs) under Section 90.

243

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh v. CIT · 239 ITR 587 · Section 195 · withholding tax on non-residents · TDS payments to non-residents · Section 40(a)(i) disallowance · income deemed to accrue in India · Section 9(1) · Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement · Section 90 · business connection · fees for technical services

Sections most often in play

Section 195 Section 37(1)Section 115JB Section 90 Section 40(a)(i)Section 10AA Section 143(3)Section 234B

Issues it is cited on

section 195(2)section 195(1)section 90(2)business connection section 195 section 201(1a)section 201(1)section 40(a)(i)section 9(1)fees for technical services permanent establishment section 194

Judgments citing Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh v. CIT

M/S Shindengen India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3343/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.3343/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Shindengen India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Plot No.283/2, Bommasandra Jigani Link Circle -6(1)(1), Road, Bengaluru – 560 105. Bengaluru. Pan : Aarcs 8947 E Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. S. D. Kapila, Advocate Respondent By : Shri. Pradeep Kumar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 30.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.08.2021 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojarithis Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.10.2018 Passed By The Dcit, Circle 6-(1)(1), Bengaluru, U/S.143(3) Read With Sec.144C (13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act), In Relation To Ay 2014-15. 2. The First Issue That Arises For Consideration In This Appeal Is With Regard To The Addition Made To The Total Income Of The Assessee Of A Sum Of Rs.21,61,37,271 Being An Addition Made Consequent To Determination Of Arm’S Length Price (Alp) U/S.92 Of The Act, In Respect Of An International Transaction Entered Into By The Assessee With Its Associated Enterprise (Ae). The Assessee Is A Wholly Owned Subsidiary Of Shindengen Electric Mfg Co., Ltd, Japan. It Was Incorporated In India On August 21, 2012 Under The Indian

For Appellant: Shri. S. D. Kapila, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92Section 92C

…e the AO and in this regard our attention was drawn to pages 545 to 616 of the paper book. The DRP on this issue did not allow any relief to the assessee by following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Transmission corporation of AP Ltd. 239 ITR 589 (SC) wherein it was held that the payee cannot decide taxability or otherwise of a payment in the hands of the recipient and choose not to deduct tax at source. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the assessee that the decision in the case of Transmission Corporation (supra) has been explained by the Supreme Court in G E Technologies (327…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Gaian Solutions India Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 569/HYD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi

For Appellant: Sri SVD Vijay Bhaskar, AdvFor Respondent: Sri Srikanth S, D.R

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 144Section 195Section 195(2)Section 40Section 69Section 69C

…e would like to bring your kind notice that the requirement of TDS is not applicable with respect to reimbursement of expenses. In addition we invited to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Transmission Corporation of AP. Ltd. vs. CIT (1999) 239 ITR 587 (SC) wherein It was held that the obligation of the deductor to deduct tax under section 195 of the Act is limited only to the appropriate proportion of Income chargeable under the Act. In the case of CIT -vs.-Creative Infocity Ltd. (2017) 397 ITR 165 (Guj.) the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court held that the Tribunal had not committed any error In dec…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Software and Silicon Systems (I) Pvt Ltd

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA/164/2007HC Karnataka31 May 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 195(2)Section 201(1)Section 260Section 260ASection 9

…rded a finding that it is under section 195(2) and (3) and (4) of the Act, the chargeability to tax or not of the recipient is decided and having failed to obtain such a decision the assessee was bound to deduct tax at source as held by the Apex Court in 239 ITR 587? d) Whether the assessee can question the taxability of the recipient in section 201(1) of the Act proceeding when the assessee has to show only "without good and sufficient reasons failed to deduct and pay tax", which has not 4 been shown in the facts of the present case and non taxability cannot be taken as a sufficient reason, wh…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Lenovo (India) Pvt Ltd

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

ITA/471/2009HC Karnataka06 Mar 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 260Section 9

…d for the subsequent period by the assessee should have been made for the earlier period also in respect of payments and having failed to do so was bound to deduct tax as held by the Apex Court in Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd., and Anr. Vs. CIT, 239 ITR 587? ii) Whether the Appellate Authorities were correct in considering the chargeability of tax or not of a non-resident recipient in Section 201(1) and Section 201(1A) of the Act proceedings when the assessee is entitled to show only ‘WITHOUT GOOD AND SUFFICIENT REASONS PAID TO DEDUCT AND PAY TAX’ which aspect was not considered and acte…

M/S Prestige Estates Projects Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-18(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 813/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt.R.Premi, JCIT-DR

Section 191Section 194Section 201Section 201(1)Section 206ASection 4

…ns ‘in respect of income’ and ‘tax on income’ in section 190(1) clearly indicates that the provisions of Chapter XVII of the Act attracts only in respect of the income of an assessee. 3.50 The Supreme Court in Transmission Corporation of A.P Ltd v CIT (1999) 239 ITR 587 held that TDS provisions apply not only to pure incomes such as salaries, dividends, interest on securities but also to gross sums which contains the element of income chargeable to tax under the Act. This principle was reiterated by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Eli Lilly and Co. India (P) Ltd [2009] 312 ITR 225 and GE India Technology Centre P. L…

Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

C.A. No.-008733-008734 - 2018Supreme Court02 Mar 2021

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

…cases where the payment made is a composite payment in which a certain proportion of payment has an element of “income” chargeable to tax in India. It is in this context that the Supreme Court stated: (Transmission Corpn. case [(1999) 7 SCC 266 : (1999) 239 ITR 587] , SCC p. 274, para 10) “10. … If no such application is filed income tax on such sum is to be deducted and it is the statutory obligation of the person responsible for paying such ‘sum’ to deduct tax thereon before making 12 payment. He has to discharge the obligation [to TDS].” (emphasis supplied) If one reads the observatio…

Boeing India Pvt. Ltd (Erstwhile Known As Boeing Intl. Corp. India Pvt. Ltd.), New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 5(1), New Delhi

ITA 2375/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Datar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT DR

Section 192Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…. DR has also filed written submissions which have been made part of the record by relying on Hon’ble Supreme Court decisions in GE India Technology Cen. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC) & Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd. & Anr. vs. CIT (1999) 239 ITR 587 (SC), which have been duly dealt with and found distinguishable with the facts of the present case by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in taxpayer’s own case for AY 2015-16. 12. Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in taxpayer’s own case for AY 2015-16 (supra) in identical facts and circumstances of the case decided the issue in controversy in…

Boeing India Pvt. Ltd (Erstwhile Known As Boeing Intl. Corp. India Pvt. Ltd.), New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 5(1), New Delhi

ITA 2374/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Datar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT DR

Section 192Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

ACIT -25(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Gepach International, Mumbai

In the result both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5943/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shris. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5943 & 5942/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15)

For Appellant: Ms. Samatha, DR byFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta, AR

Section 143(2)Section 195Section 40Section 9

…C) supports the case of the assessee. This decision has been rendered after duly considering the case law vehemently relied upon by the Learned AO on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd vs CIT reported in 239 ITR 587 (SC) vide para 10 of the judgement at pages. 465 & 466. We are also in complete agreement with the arguments advanced by the Learned AR that the various case la\vs relied upon by the Learned CITA in his order vide paras 7 to 12 were rendered prior to rendering of Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in GE India Technology case on 9.9.2010. Hence we don…

ADIT(It)-I, Hyderabad vs. M/S Kamineni Hospitals Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 1001/HYD/2013[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jun 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Kamineni Hospitals Income Tax-1, (International Pvt Ltd., Transaction), L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aaack 8356 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri A. Srinivas Revenue By: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 31/01/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/06/2020

For Appellant: Sri A. SrinivasFor Respondent: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, CIT-DR

Section 191Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 54

…s also placed on the decision of the cases (i) Cheminor Drugs Ltd vs. ITO (2005) reported in 76 ITD 37 (Hyd. Trib), (ii) Associate Cement Company Ltd vs. CIT (1993) reported in 201 ITR 435 (SC) and (iii) Transmission Corp. A.P. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1999) reported in 239 ITR 587 by the Ld. DIT (IT). (viii) From the above it was obvious that the assessee Company had failed to deduct tax at source towards the payments made to the NRIs and therefore the assessee has to be held as an ‘assessee in default’ as per the provision of section 201(1) of the Act. 5. With the above observations, the Ld. DCIT computed the total tax p…

Divya Creation, Noida vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Noida

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed

ITA 5959/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jun 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Piyush KaushikFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Singh Dahiya, Sr. D.R

Section 40

…TA.No.5959/Del./2017 M/s. Divya Creations, Noida (UP). The Ld. D.R. however, relied upon the Orders of the authorities below and also relied upon Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd., & Another vs., CIT [1999] 239 ITR 587 (SC). 6. We have considered the rival submissions. It is not in dispute that the issue is same as have already been considered in earlier year by the Tribunal. The parties are also same. The Tribunal examined the issue in the light of agreement and material on record and found that the agent had their base situated in Abroad and moreover service…

Micro Inks Pvt. Ltd., ( Formerly Known As Micro Inks Ltd.), Vapi vs. The Income Tax Officer, ( Intl. Taxn.), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2707/AHD/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2375/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Income Tax Officer, V Micro Inks Limited, (International Taxation), Surat. S. Bilakhia House, Muktanand Marg, Chala, Vapi – 396 191. [Pan: Aaach 7063 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2707/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Micro Inks Limited, V The Income Tax Officer, Bilakhia House, Muktanand S. (International Taxation), Marg, Chala, Vapi – 396 191. Surat. [Pan: Aaach 7063 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Gopala Krishnan – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupam Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 06.02.2020 उ"घोषणाक"तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 14.02.2020

Section 201Section 5Section 5(2)Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(v)Section 9(1)(vb)

…Act, 1961 in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court of India in the case of GE India Technology (P.) Lid. v. CIT [2010] 7 taxmann.com 18/193 Taxman 234/327 ITR 156 (SC) and Transmission Corporation of AP Ltd. and another v. CIT [1999] 105 Taxman 742/239 ITR 587 (SC) and the decision of the Madras High Court in CIT v. Chennai Metropolitan Water tax Cases Appeals Nos.500-501 of 2005, [2011] 14 taxmann.com 73/202 Taxman 454/[2012] 348 ITR 5.30 (Mad.) with a request for clarification as to whether the tax is to be deducted under sub-section (1) of section 195 on the whole sum being remitted to a non-residen…

The ITO, (International Taxation), Surat vs. Micro Inks Limited, Vapi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2375/AHD/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Section 201Section 5Section 5(2)Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(v)Section 9(1)(vb)

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Sonata Information Technology Limited

Appeal is disposed of with a direction that the Assessing Officer

ITA/1058/2006HC Karnataka29 Jan 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 195(2)Section 260Section 9

…ded a finding that it is under section 195(2) and (3) and (4) of the Act, the chargeability to tax or not of the recipient is decided and having failed to obtain such a decision the assessee was bound to deduct tax at source as held by the Apex Court in 239 ITR 587. 4. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the payment partakes the character of purchase and sale of goods and therefore cannot be treated as royalty payment liable to Income Tax. 3. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the controversy involved in this appeal is squarely 4 covered by the judg…

D.C.I.T., Circle-2(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Shalimar Wires Industries Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1354/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 5(2)(b)Section 9(1)

…unt is to be paid to a non-resident. Income-tax on such sum is to be deducted and it is the statutory obligation of the person responsible for paying such "sum" to deduct tax thereon before making payment. [Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1999) 239 ITR 587 (Se)]. The expression "any other sum chargeable under the provisions of this Act" in sec. 195(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, contemplates not only amounts, the whole of which is taxable without deduction, but also amounts of a mixed composition, a part of which only might turn out to be taxable income, as well as other disbursements, which are o…

Standard Chartered Securities (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed, in the terms indicated above

ITA 1859/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: A Coordinate Bench Of This Tribunal, The Matter Was Remanded Back To The File Of The Cit(A) By Observing As Follows:-

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 195(1)Section 195(2)Section 40

…nder article 7 of the DTAA between India and USA, the assessee had not deducted Tax while remitting the amount. The Assessing Officer was of the opinion that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Transmission Corporation of India 239 ITR 587, the amount is covered by section 195 and the assessee should have deducted the tax. Therefore, the provisions of section 40(a)(i) are applicable and accordingly the amount was disallowed. The Assessing Officer made discussion in Para 7 from Page 33 to 38 of the order. 9. Before the CIT (A) it was submitted that the payments to Overseas Non-Resid…

S N Builders & Developers, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee- company is allowed

ITA 106/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. S.N.Builders & Developers, No.4, 2Nd Floor, Elephant Rock Road, Above Kalayan Jewellers, Jayanagar 3Rd Block, Bengaluru-560 011. Pan: Abefs 8850 P … Appellant Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 4(3)(1), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant By : Smt. Suman Lunkar, Ca. Respondent By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 07/11/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 27/11/2019 O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm : The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Bangalore-9, Bangalore, Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short].

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 40Section 80Section 80I

…was applicable only to pure income payments and not to composite payments which had an element of income embedded or incorporated in them. The controversy before us in this batch of cases is, therefore, quite different. In Transmission Corporation case (1999) 239 ITR 587 (SC) it was held that TAS was liable to be deducted by the payer on the gross amount if such payment included in it an amount which was exigible to tax in India. It was held that if the payer wanted to deduct TAS not on the gross amount but on the lesser amount on Page 11 of 14 the footing that only a portion of the payment made represented ‘ inc…

Dy.C.I.T. 1, Bhilai(Cg) vs. Shri Sandeep Surendran Nair, Bhilai(Cg)

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 318/BIL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur08 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury,Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.222& 318/Rpr/2014 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11& 2011-12

For Appellant: ShriMakarand Joshi and ShriAniruddhaKavimandanFor Respondent: Smt. AnubhaTahGoel

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 43B

…ecisions; deleted the addition made by Assessing Officer. a) Toyo Engg. India Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (2006) 100 TTJ (Mumbai) 373 : (2006) 5 SOT 616 (Mumbai) A.Y. 2010-11 & 2011-12 b) Transmission Corporation of AP Ltd. &Anr. Vs. CIT (1999) 239 ITR 587 (SC) c) ITO Vs. T.G. Veeraraghavan (2007) 110 TTJ (Coch) 708. 6. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Revenue is now in appeal before us. 7. Before us, Ld. DRtook us through the order of Assessing Officer and supported the order of Assessing Officer. She submitted that the order of CIT(A) be set aside. 8. The Ld. AR on the other hand reiterated the…

Dy.C.I.T. 1 vs. Shri Sandeep Surendran Nair, Bhilai(Cg)

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 222/BIL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur08 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury,Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.222& 318/Rpr/2014 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11& 2011-12

For Appellant: ShriMakarand Joshi and ShriAniruddhaKavimandanFor Respondent: Smt. AnubhaTahGoel

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 43B

Integra Software Services P Ltd., Chennai vs. JCIT, Pondicherry

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in I

ITA 598/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. M. Srinivasa Rao, CIT

Section 195Section 40Section 92C

…s not taxable in India. Hence, there cannot be any disallowance. Therefore, the assessee is not liable to deduct tax as required under Section 195 of the Act. The Apex Court has also examined this issue in Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd. v. CIT (1999) 239 ITR 587 and found that when the payment made to non-resident is not taxable in India, it is not necessary to deduct tax under Section 195 of the Act. 21 I.T.A. No.2189/Chny/17 I.T.A. No.598/Chny/17 Therefore, there cannot be any disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act 20. In view of the above, we are unable to uphold the orders of the CIT(App…