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 366,470 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
Read the full judgment

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

DCIT 7(3), Mumbai vs. Zodiac Clothing Co.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3973/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.3973/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2009-10)

For Appellant: Ms.Anu K AggarwalFor Respondent: Mrs.Vasanti B Patel
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 40

…pex court, which we find to be in consonance with the decisions rendered earlier, as in CIT v. Cooper Engg. Ltd. [1968] 68 ITR 457 (Bom.); CIT v. Eli Lilly & Co. (India) (P.) Ltd. [2009] 312 ITR 225/178 Taxman 505 (SC); Vijay Ship Breaking Corpn. v. CIT[2009] 314 ITR 309/[2008] 175 Taxman 77 (SC) and, rather Transmission Corpn. of A.P. Ltd. (supra) as well, squarely covers the facts of the instant case. The Revenue, to enable us to disturb the like finding by the ld. CIT(A), ought to have explained as to how it is infirm or does not amount to a correct reading of the said decision, or is otherwise not applicable…

ITO WD 3(4), Thane vs. Ulhas Gopal Karle, Thane

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 973/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer, Shree Ulhas Gopal Karle, Ward 3(4), Room No.9, 204, Kalika Tower, Opp. बनाम/ B-Wing, Ashar It Park, Pratap Cinema, Vs. Road No.16Z, Kolbad Road, Near Ambika Nagar Thane (W)-400604 Thane(W)-400604 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Afypk0221L Assessment Year: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer, Shree Ulhas Gopal Karle, Ward 3(4), Room No.9, 204, Kalika Tower, Opp. बनाम/ B-Wing, Ashar It Park, Pratap Cinema, Vs. Road No.16Z, Kolbad Road, Near Ambika Nagar Thane (W)-400604 Thane(W)-400604 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Afypk0221L

Section 80I

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,एफ,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “F”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी रिमत कोचर, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Ramit Kochar, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer, Shree Ulhas Gopal Karle, Ward 3(4), Room No.9, 204, Kalika Tower, Opp. बनाम/ B-Wing, Ashar IT Park, Pratap Cinema, Vs. Road No.16Z, Kolbad Road, Near Ambika Nagar Thane (W)-400604 Thane(W)-400604 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) PAN. No.AFYPK0221L Assessment Year: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer, Shree Ulhas Gopal…

ITO WD 3(4), Thane vs. Ulhas Gopal Karle, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2369/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer, Shree Ulhas Gopal Karle, Ward 3(4), Room No.9, 204, Kalika Tower, Opp. बनाम/ B-Wing, Ashar It Park, Pratap Cinema, Vs. Road No.16Z, Kolbad Road, Near Ambika Nagar Thane (W)-400604 Thane(W)-400604 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Afypk0221L Assessment Year: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer, Shree Ulhas Gopal Karle, Ward 3(4), Room No.9, 204, Kalika Tower, Opp. बनाम/ B-Wing, Ashar It Park, Pratap Cinema, Vs. Road No.16Z, Kolbad Road, Near Ambika Nagar Thane (W)-400604 Thane(W)-400604 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Afypk0221L

Section 80I

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,एफ,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “F”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी रिमत कोचर, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Ramit Kochar, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer, Shree Ulhas Gopal Karle, Ward 3(4), Room No.9, 204, Kalika Tower, Opp. बनाम/ B-Wing, Ashar IT Park, Pratap Cinema, Vs. Road No.16Z, Kolbad Road, Near Ambika Nagar Thane (W)-400604 Thane(W)-400604 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) PAN. No.AFYPK0221L Assessment Year: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer, Shree Ulhas Gopal…

Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi II vs. M/s Kohinoor Impex P. Ltd

ITA-179/2001HC Delhi28 Aug 2014
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 263Section 40Section 80HSection 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(v)Section 95

…vs. Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation [2003] 261 ITR 113, and it was held to be taxable under Section 9(1)(v) of the Act. The assessee had then preferred an appeal before the Surpeme Court which was admitted and disposed of by judgment reported as [2009] 314 ITR 309 (SC). However, the Supreme Court did not examine the issue on merits in view of the Explanation 2 to Section 10(15)(iv)(c) of the Act applicable to ship breaking industry, to the effect that usance interest 2014:DHC:4226-DB ITA 179/2001 Page 5 of 8 payable outs…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi- II vs. M/S Kohinoor Impex P. Ltd

ITA - 179 / 2001HC Delhi28 Aug 2014
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 263Section 40Section 80HSection 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(v)Section 95

…vs. Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation [2003] 261 ITR 113, and it was held to be taxable under Section 9(1)(v) of the Act. The assessee had then preferred an appeal before the Surpeme Court which was admitted and disposed of by judgment reported as [2009] 314 ITR 309 (SC). However, the Supreme Court did not examine the issue on merits in view of the Explanation 2 to Section 10(15)(iv)(c) of the Act applicable to ship breaking industry, to the effect that usance interest 2014:DHC:4226-DB ITA 179/2001 Page 5 of 8 payable outs…

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

ITA/179/2001HC Delhi28 Aug 2014
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 263Section 40Section 80HSection 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(v)Section 95

…vs. Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation [2003] 261 ITR 113, and it was held to be taxable under Section 9(1)(v) of the Act. The assessee had then preferred an appeal before the Surpeme Court which was admitted and disposed of by judgment reported as [2009] 314 ITR 309 (SC). However, the Supreme Court did not examine the issue on merits in view of the Explanation 2 to Section 10(15)(iv)(c) of the Act applicable to ship breaking industry, to the effect that usance interest 2014:DHC:4226-DB ITA 179/2001 Page 5 of 8 payable outs…

Comm of Incometax Rajahindry vs. A.Venkateswarlu Ors Kakinada

ITTA/61/2003HC Telangana21 Jun 2011

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

The Comm. of Income Tax Rajahmundry vs. M/S B.Krishna Murthy and Others

ITTA/82/2003HC Telangana21 Jun 2011

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN