Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation and Others v. CIT

314 ITR 309Supreme Court of India2009#1289 most cited

What is Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation and Others v. CIT authority for?

The obligation to deduct tax at source under Section 195 for payments to non-residents arises only when the sum is chargeable to tax in India. If the income is not assessable to tax in India, there is no requirement to deduct tax at source.

88

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation v CIT · 314 ITR 309 · SC 2009 · Section 195 · Section 40(a)(i) · Section 9 · TDS on payments to non-residents · sum chargeable to tax in India · income assessable in India · disallowance for non-deduction of TDS · tax at source obligation · non-resident income taxability

Sections most often in play

Section 195Section 250Section 40(a)(i)Section 9

Issues it is cited on

section 195section 40(a)(i)section 9(1)section 40(a)section 19non-residentdouble taxationsection 40section 10companypersonindia

Judgments citing Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation and Others v. CIT

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),AGRA, AGRA vs. EMCO EXPORTS, AGRA

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 415/AGR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 9

…, the whole or part of which is liable to tax in India. The payer is bound to deduct TAS only if the tax is assessable in India. If tax is not so assessable, there is no question of TAS being deducted. [See : Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation and Others Vs. CIT 314 ITR 309] 9. One more aspect needs to be highlighted. Section 195 falls in Chapter XVII which deals with collection and recovery. Chapter XVII-B deals with deduction at source by the payer. On analysis of various provisions of Chapter XVII one finds use of different expressions, however, the expression “sum chargeable under the provisions of the 9 | P a…

SHAHNAJ,NEAR BHERUDANJI WELL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, INCOME TAX OFFICE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 712/JODH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Dr Mitha Lal Meenasmt. Shanaj Vs The Ito W/O Shri Aslam Khan Ward-2, Churu, Near Bherudan Ji Well,Ward No. 22 Churu Sardarshahar,Churu – 331 403 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Fpmps 3570 D

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 50CSection 54F

…80] 4 Taxman 381 in support of his contention that profits or gains on sale of agricultural land will be revenue within the meaning of section 2(1) (now 2(1 A) of the Act). This principle was reiterated by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case reported in 208 ITR 98 (sic). By virtue of the amendments to section 2(14)(ili) of the Act, only agricultural land situated within the municipal limits gets excluded from the definition of agricultural land. Per contra, agricultural land situated outside the municipal limits, upon sale, gives rise to agricultural income only.” Sir, you would find that the ratio laid dow…

ACIT-32(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. VKT VENTURES LLP, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Reven

ITA 2349/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: 09/07/2024
Section 36(1)(iii)

…ue relied on a Bombay High Court decision in Learned counsel for the Revenue relied on a Bombay High Court decision in Learned counsel for the Revenue relied on a Bombay High Court decision in Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. vs. CIT (1995) 127 CTR (Bom) 359 : (1994) 208 ITR 98 Sugar Works Ltd. vs. CIT (1995) 127 CTR (Bom) 359 : (1994) 208 ITR 989 (Bom) in Sugar Works Ltd. vs. CIT (1995) 127 CTR (Bom) 359 : (1994) 208 ITR 98 which it was held that deduction under s. 36(1)(iii) can only be allowed on the interest if which it was held that deduction under s. 36(1)(iii) can only be allowed on the interest if which it was he…

ACIT 32(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. VKT VENTURES LLP, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Reven

ITA 2322/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: 09/07/2024
Section 36(1)(iii)

…ue relied on a Bombay High Court decision in Learned counsel for the Revenue relied on a Bombay High Court decision in Learned counsel for the Revenue relied on a Bombay High Court decision in Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. vs. CIT (1995) 127 CTR (Bom) 359 : (1994) 208 ITR 98 Sugar Works Ltd. vs. CIT (1995) 127 CTR (Bom) 359 : (1994) 208 ITR 989 (Bom) in Sugar Works Ltd. vs. CIT (1995) 127 CTR (Bom) 359 : (1994) 208 ITR 98 which it was held that deduction under s. 36(1)(iii) can only be allowed on the interest if which it was held that deduction under s. 36(1)(iii) can only be allowed on the interest if which it was he…

EXIMCORP INDIA (P) LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIR-5(2),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 702/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 115JSection 195Section 195(1)Section 2Section 40

…120 (Gujarat), which had reversed the finding in the Hon’ble ITAT’s order in this case (supra), and concluded that since this case itself has been reversed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation vs. CIT reported in [2009] 314 ITR 309 (SC), therefore, the original order of the Hon'ble ITAT would hold the ground. Ld. A/R also pointed out that Hon'ble Gujarat High Court’s decision in Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation (supra) is also contradicted by the findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Bawa Paulins Pvt. Ltd. vs. UPS Freight Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. and An…

EXIMCORP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED. ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIR-5(2),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 701/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 115JSection 195Section 195(1)Section 2Section 40

…120 (Gujarat), which had reversed the finding in the Hon’ble ITAT’s order in this case (supra), and concluded that since this case itself has been reversed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation vs. CIT reported in [2009] 314 ITR 309 (SC), therefore, the original order of the Hon'ble ITAT would hold the ground. Ld. A/R also pointed out that Hon'ble Gujarat High Court’s decision in Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation (supra) is also contradicted by the findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Bawa Paulins Pvt. Ltd. vs. UPS Freight Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. and An…

RAKESH KUMAR,PATNA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4, PATNA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2012-13

ITA 86/PAT/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna23 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos.85 & 86/Pat/2017 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80I

…02.2018. Reference was made to various other decisions for the proposition that manufacturing cannot be given narrow meaning and even assembling is also manufacturing, and the same are as under: i) Indian Cine Agencies 308 IYT 98 (SC), ii) Vijay Ship Breaking 314 ITR 309 SC, iii) Sri Mahesh Chandra Sharma 308 ITR 222 (PH), iv) Perfect liners 142 ITR 654 (Madras), v) Fateh Granite P Ltd. 314 ITR 32 (Bom), vi)Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd. 355 ITR 14 (Delhi) and vii)Jeevan Diesel & Electricals Ltd Calcutta ITAT 7. He also submitted that it has also been consistently held that if a deduction has been granted for…

RAKESH KUMAR,PATNA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4, PATNA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2012-13

ITA 85/PAT/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Patna23 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos.85 & 86/Pat/2017 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80I

…02.2018. Reference was made to various other decisions for the proposition that manufacturing cannot be given narrow meaning and even assembling is also manufacturing, and the same are as under: i) Indian Cine Agencies 308 IYT 98 (SC), ii) Vijay Ship Breaking 314 ITR 309 SC, iii) Sri Mahesh Chandra Sharma 308 ITR 222 (PH), iv) Perfect liners 142 ITR 654 (Madras), v) Fateh Granite P Ltd. 314 ITR 32 (Bom), vi)Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd. 355 ITR 14 (Delhi) and vii)Jeevan Diesel & Electricals Ltd Calcutta ITAT 7. He also submitted that it has also been consistently held that if a deduction has been granted for…

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

…, the whole or part of which is liable to tax in India. The payer is bound to deduct TAS only if the tax is assessable in India. If tax is not so assessable, there is no question of TAS being deducted. [See : Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation and Others Vs. CIT 314 ITR 309] One more aspect needs to be highlighted. Section 195 falls in Chapter XVII which deals with collection and recovery. Chapter XVII-B deals with deduction at source by the payer. On analysis of various provisions of Chapter XVII one finds use of different expressions, however, the expression "sum chargeable under the provisions of the Act" is used…

ACIT CIRCLE-28(1), DELHI vs. SAM OVERSEAS, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 169/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Sr. Advocate
Section 195

…thin the meaning of Explanation below the section. In support it had relied upon the following judgments:- 71 Cross I.T.A. Nos. 1695/Del/2020 & 169/Del/2021 (1) CIT s. Cooper Engineering Ltd. [68 ITR 457 (Bom.)] (ii) Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation vs. CIT [314 ITR 309 (SC)] (iii) Al Nisr Publishing [239 ITR 879 (AAR)] (iv) British Gas India Pvt. Ltd. in Re. [287 ITR 421], [239 ITR 879 (AAR)] 50.3 It is submitted that the aforesaid 'persons' to whom the commission had been paid are non-residents and does not have a PE in India. In fact it had been contended that the expenditure as had been incurred was for se…

SAM OVERSEAS ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE- 24(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1695/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Sr. Advocate
Section 195

…thin the meaning of Explanation below the section. In support it had relied upon the following judgments:- 71 Cross I.T.A. Nos. 1695/Del/2020 & 169/Del/2021 (1) CIT s. Cooper Engineering Ltd. [68 ITR 457 (Bom.)] (ii) Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation vs. CIT [314 ITR 309 (SC)] (iii) Al Nisr Publishing [239 ITR 879 (AAR)] (iv) British Gas India Pvt. Ltd. in Re. [287 ITR 421], [239 ITR 879 (AAR)] 50.3 It is submitted that the aforesaid 'persons' to whom the commission had been paid are non-residents and does not have a PE in India. In fact it had been contended that the expenditure as had been incurred was for se…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2008-09,

ITA 1673/CHNY/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1673, 1688, 1689, 1691/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. United India Insurance Co. Tax, V. Ltd., Large Tax Payer Unit, 24, Whites Road, Chennai – Chennai. 600 014. [Pan: Aaacu-5552-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 1693/Chny/2011, 36/Chny/2014 & 696/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. United India Insurance Co. Tax, V. Ltd., Large Tax Payer Unit, 24, Whites Road, Chennai – Chennai. 600 014. [Pan: Aaacu-5552-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. S. Sundararaman, Ca Department Represented By : Shri. M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel & Ms. V. Pushpa, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.08.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R

Section 195Section 195(1)Section 40Section 5(2)(b)

…explained in the judgments of the Supreme Court of India in the cases of Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Eli Lilly & Co. (India) P Ltd (312 ITR 225); GE India Technology Centre Private Ltd Vs CIT (2010-TII-07-SC-INTL) and Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation v. CIT (314 ITR 309). In the aforesaid cases, the Supreme Court has held that taxes would need to be withheld only if the sum payable is chargeable to tax under the provisions of the Act. As in this case it is the contention of the assessee that no portion of payment is liable to tax, the question of application of section 195(2) does not arise because, as the secti…

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2008-09,

ITA 696/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1673, 1688, 1689, 1691/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. United India Insurance Co. Tax, V. Ltd., Large Tax Payer Unit, 24, Whites Road, Chennai – Chennai. 600 014. [Pan: Aaacu-5552-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 1693/Chny/2011, 36/Chny/2014 & 696/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. United India Insurance Co. Tax, V. Ltd., Large Tax Payer Unit, 24, Whites Road, Chennai – Chennai. 600 014. [Pan: Aaacu-5552-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. S. Sundararaman, Ca Department Represented By : Shri. M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel & Ms. V. Pushpa, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.08.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R

Section 195Section 195(1)Section 40Section 5(2)(b)

…explained in the judgments of the Supreme Court of India in the cases of Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Eli Lilly & Co. (India) P Ltd (312 ITR 225); GE India Technology Centre Private Ltd Vs CIT (2010-TII-07-SC-INTL) and Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation v. CIT (314 ITR 309). In the aforesaid cases, the Supreme Court has held that taxes would need to be withheld only if the sum payable is chargeable to tax under the provisions of the Act. As in this case it is the contention of the assessee that no portion of payment is liable to tax, the question of application of section 195(2) does not arise because, as the secti…

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2008-09,

ITA 36/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1673, 1688, 1689, 1691/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. United India Insurance Co. Tax, V. Ltd., Large Tax Payer Unit, 24, Whites Road, Chennai – Chennai. 600 014. [Pan: Aaacu-5552-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 1693/Chny/2011, 36/Chny/2014 & 696/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. United India Insurance Co. Tax, V. Ltd., Large Tax Payer Unit, 24, Whites Road, Chennai – Chennai. 600 014. [Pan: Aaacu-5552-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. S. Sundararaman, Ca Department Represented By : Shri. M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel & Ms. V. Pushpa, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.08.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R

Section 195Section 195(1)Section 40Section 5(2)(b)

…explained in the judgments of the Supreme Court of India in the cases of Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Eli Lilly & Co. (India) P Ltd (312 ITR 225); GE India Technology Centre Private Ltd Vs CIT (2010-TII-07-SC-INTL) and Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation v. CIT (314 ITR 309). In the aforesaid cases, the Supreme Court has held that taxes would need to be withheld only if the sum payable is chargeable to tax under the provisions of the Act. As in this case it is the contention of the assessee that no portion of payment is liable to tax, the question of application of section 195(2) does not arise because, as the secti…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2008-09,

ITA 1693/CHNY/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1673, 1688, 1689, 1691/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. United India Insurance Co. Tax, V. Ltd., Large Tax Payer Unit, 24, Whites Road, Chennai – Chennai. 600 014. [Pan: Aaacu-5552-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 1693/Chny/2011, 36/Chny/2014 & 696/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. United India Insurance Co. Tax, V. Ltd., Large Tax Payer Unit, 24, Whites Road, Chennai – Chennai. 600 014. [Pan: Aaacu-5552-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. S. Sundararaman, Ca Department Represented By : Shri. M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel & Ms. V. Pushpa, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.08.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R

Section 195Section 195(1)Section 40Section 5(2)(b)

…explained in the judgments of the Supreme Court of India in the cases of Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Eli Lilly & Co. (India) P Ltd (312 ITR 225); GE India Technology Centre Private Ltd Vs CIT (2010-TII-07-SC-INTL) and Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation v. CIT (314 ITR 309). In the aforesaid cases, the Supreme Court has held that taxes would need to be withheld only if the sum payable is chargeable to tax under the provisions of the Act. As in this case it is the contention of the assessee that no portion of payment is liable to tax, the question of application of section 195(2) does not arise because, as the secti…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2008-09,

ITA 1691/CHNY/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1673, 1688, 1689, 1691/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. United India Insurance Co. Tax, V. Ltd., Large Tax Payer Unit, 24, Whites Road, Chennai – Chennai. 600 014. [Pan: Aaacu-5552-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 1693/Chny/2011, 36/Chny/2014 & 696/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. United India Insurance Co. Tax, V. Ltd., Large Tax Payer Unit, 24, Whites Road, Chennai – Chennai. 600 014. [Pan: Aaacu-5552-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. S. Sundararaman, Ca Department Represented By : Shri. M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel & Ms. V. Pushpa, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.08.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R

Section 195Section 195(1)Section 40Section 5(2)(b)

…explained in the judgments of the Supreme Court of India in the cases of Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Eli Lilly & Co. (India) P Ltd (312 ITR 225); GE India Technology Centre Private Ltd Vs CIT (2010-TII-07-SC-INTL) and Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation v. CIT (314 ITR 309). In the aforesaid cases, the Supreme Court has held that taxes would need to be withheld only if the sum payable is chargeable to tax under the provisions of the Act. As in this case it is the contention of the assessee that no portion of payment is liable to tax, the question of application of section 195(2) does not arise because, as the secti…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2008-09,

ITA 1689/CHNY/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1673, 1688, 1689, 1691/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. United India Insurance Co. Tax, V. Ltd., Large Tax Payer Unit, 24, Whites Road, Chennai – Chennai. 600 014. [Pan: Aaacu-5552-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 1693/Chny/2011, 36/Chny/2014 & 696/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. United India Insurance Co. Tax, V. Ltd., Large Tax Payer Unit, 24, Whites Road, Chennai – Chennai. 600 014. [Pan: Aaacu-5552-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. S. Sundararaman, Ca Department Represented By : Shri. M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel & Ms. V. Pushpa, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.08.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R

Section 195Section 195(1)Section 40Section 5(2)(b)

…explained in the judgments of the Supreme Court of India in the cases of Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Eli Lilly & Co. (India) P Ltd (312 ITR 225); GE India Technology Centre Private Ltd Vs CIT (2010-TII-07-SC-INTL) and Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation v. CIT (314 ITR 309). In the aforesaid cases, the Supreme Court has held that taxes would need to be withheld only if the sum payable is chargeable to tax under the provisions of the Act. As in this case it is the contention of the assessee that no portion of payment is liable to tax, the question of application of section 195(2) does not arise because, as the secti…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2008-09,

ITA 1688/CHNY/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1673, 1688, 1689, 1691/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. United India Insurance Co. Tax, V. Ltd., Large Tax Payer Unit, 24, Whites Road, Chennai – Chennai. 600 014. [Pan: Aaacu-5552-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 1693/Chny/2011, 36/Chny/2014 & 696/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. United India Insurance Co. Tax, V. Ltd., Large Tax Payer Unit, 24, Whites Road, Chennai – Chennai. 600 014. [Pan: Aaacu-5552-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. S. Sundararaman, Ca Department Represented By : Shri. M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel & Ms. V. Pushpa, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.08.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R

Section 195Section 195(1)Section 40Section 5(2)(b)

…explained in the judgments of the Supreme Court of India in the cases of Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Eli Lilly & Co. (India) P Ltd (312 ITR 225); GE India Technology Centre Private Ltd Vs CIT (2010-TII-07-SC-INTL) and Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation v. CIT (314 ITR 309). In the aforesaid cases, the Supreme Court has held that taxes would need to be withheld only if the sum payable is chargeable to tax under the provisions of the Act. As in this case it is the contention of the assessee that no portion of payment is liable to tax, the question of application of section 195(2) does not arise because, as the secti…

THE ITO,, ALAPPUZHA vs. M/S.EXTRAWEAVE P. LTD, ALAPPUZHA

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

ITA 448/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Extraweave Pvt. Ltd. Arattukulangara Complex 264B/Cmc 1 Vs. A.N. Puram, Alapuzha 688011 Sakteeswara Junction Cherthala 688524 Pan – Aabce5438L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 10BSection 10B(3)Section 143(2)Section 195Section 195(6)Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri George George K., Judicial Member and Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member M/s. Extraweave Pvt. Ltd. Arattukulangara Complex 264B/CMC 1 Vs. A.N. Puram, Alapuzha 688011 Sakteeswara Junction Cherthala 688524 PAN – AABCE5438L Appellant Respondent Appellant by: Shri R. Krishan, CA Respondent by: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 22.06.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 24.06.2022 O R D E R Per: L.P. Sahu, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the learned CIT(A), Kottayam dated 21.07.2016 for AY 2010-11.…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-31, NEW DELHI vs. CHESLIND TEXTILES LTD. , RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5929/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 5929/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Dcit, Vs Cheslind Textiles Ltd., Central Circle-31, Kharigram, P.B. No. 28, Post New Delhi-110055 Office-Gulabpura, Distt. Bhilwara, Rajasthan-311021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcc2435K Assessee By : Sh. S. S. Nagar, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Shashi Kajle, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.06.2022

For Appellant: Sh. S. S. Nagar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Shashi Kajle, Sr. DR
Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI Before Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member Sh. Anubhav Sharma, Judicial Member ITA No. 5929/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 DCIT, Vs Cheslind Textiles Ltd., Central Circle-31, Kharigram, P.B. No. 28, Post New Delhi-110055 Office-Gulabpura, Distt. Bhilwara, Rajasthan-311021 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AABCC2435K Assessee by : Sh. S. S. Nagar, CA Revenue by : Ms. Shashi Kajle, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 02.05.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 01.06.2022 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the Reven…

Showing 1–20 of 88 · Page 1 of 5

Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation and Others v. CIT (314 ITR 309) — Cited in 88 Judgments | BharatTax