← All Phrases

“withholding tax”

TDS / TCSSection 195Section 195663 judgments

AMAZON SMART COMMERCE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-1, DELHI

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3533/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2021-22
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)

PCIT erred in issuing vague/open ended directions to the assessing officer to examine the claim of advertisement expenses, its genuineness and applicability of withholding tax provisions thereon.\n13. 2. That the PCIT erred in setting aside the assessment order on aforesaid issue, without even recording any prima facie findings ... valuation, policy of discounts and provision on right to return assets. It has also been alleged that the basis of valuation of scrap and withholding tax implication on sales discounts have not been verified.\n113 In this regard, it is at the outset submitted that revenue from sale of traded

DCIT-CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. DIEBOLD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the\nCOs filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 5508/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2013-14
Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

money covered u/s.\n56(2)(x) of the Act. However. Gift of any sum of money from relative shall\nnot be liable for withholding tax obligation u/s. 195.\nSection 9(1)(i) - Income other than Interest / Royalty FTS/Salaries/Dividend\n5.5.4.5. If the payment to non-resident or a foreign company

DCIT-CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. DIEBOLD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

ITA 5507/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

money covered u/s. 56(2)(x) of the Act. However. Gift of any sum of money from relative shall not be liable for withholding tax obligation u/s. 195. Section 9(1)(i) - Income other than Interest / Royalty FTS/Salaries/Dividend 5.5.4.5. If the payment to non-resident or a foreign company

DCIT-CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. DIEBOLD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the\nCOs filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 5506/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2011-12
Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

money covered u/s.\n56(2)(x) of the Act. However. Gift of any sum of money from relative shall\nnot be liable for withholding tax obligation u/s. 195.\nSection 9(1)(i) - Income other than Interest / Royalty FTS/Salaries/Dividend\n5.5.4.5. If the payment to non-resident or a foreign company

DCIT-CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. DIEBOLD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the\nCOS filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 5505/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2010-11
Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

money covered u/s.\n56(2)(x) of the Act. However. Gift of any sum of money from relative shall\nnot be liable for withholding tax obligation u/s. 195.\nSection 9(1)(i) - Income other than Interest / Royalty FTS/Salaries/Dividend\n5.5.4.5. If the payment to non-resident or a foreign company

DENTSU AEGIS NETWORK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED(ERSTWHILE VIZEUM MEDIA SERVICE INDIA MERGED IN DAN INDIA),MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 8(3)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6122/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokardentsu Aegis Network Dcit Central India Private Limited Circle-1(1), (Erstwhile Vizeum Media Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Service India Merged Maharashi Karve With Dentsu Aegis Marg, Mumbai-400 Network India Private 020 Limited W.E.F. 1St April 2017) 2Nd Floor, Devchand House, Dr. A. B. Road, Shiv Sagar Estate Mumbai, Worli So, Mumbai-400 018 Pan/Gir No. Aahca3058N (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ketan Ved & Shri Abdul Kadir Jawadwala, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 20.02.2026

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37(1)Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)

agreements. It was further pointed out that the agreements also provided for invoicing of the net reimbursable amount and for bearing of withholding taxes by the recipient entity, thereby demonstrating that the payments were structured as cost reimbursement without any profit element. 19. The learned AR further invited our attention

DCIT, CIRCLE-73(1), DELHI vs. CANON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5588/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: BEFORESHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA (Accountant Member)

Section 194Section 201(1)

present case. Also, appellant during proceedings submitted plethora of case explaining that the CAM charges were considered as contractual payments subject to withholding tax at rate of 2% u/s 194C of the I.T. Act, 1961. a) M/s Kapoor Watch Company Pvt. Ltd. [KWPL]- In the case of KWPL, the case

MCDONALD'S CORPORATION ,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2(2)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-13, AY

ITA 3847/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 295(2)(h)

relation to the alleged Permanent Establishment (PE) of the Appellant in India by the Ld. AO, the Competent Authorities have agreed to the 15% withholding tax paid by the Appellant in India as per its return of income; and ii) In relation to the adjustment on royalty income (relevant

MCDONALD'S CORPORATION,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2(2)(1), INTL. TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-13, AY

ITA 5609/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 295(2)(h)

relation to the alleged Permanent Establishment (PE) of the Appellant in India by the Ld. AO, the Competent Authorities have agreed to the 15% withholding tax paid by the Appellant in India as per its return of income; and ii) In relation to the adjustment on royalty income (relevant

MCDONALD'S CORPORATION,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-13, AY

ITA 211/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 295(2)(h)

relation to the alleged Permanent Establishment (PE) of the Appellant in India by the Ld. AO, the Competent Authorities have agreed to the 15% withholding tax paid by the Appellant in India as per its return of income; and ii) In relation to the adjustment on royalty income (relevant

FIRSTRAND BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMM. OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2502/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19 Firstrand Bank Limited The Assistant Commissioner Of C-53, G-Block, 5 Th Floor, Income-Tax, Tcg Financial Centre, Circle-2(3)(1), Bandra-Kurla Complex, Mumbai Vs. Bandra (East)., Mumbai -400051 (Pan: Aabcf1632P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Paras Savla, Advocate Revenue : Shri Annavaram K, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.02.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Final Assessment Order Passed Pursuant To The Directions Of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel- 1, Mumbai, Vide Order No. Itba/Drp/F/144C(5)/2022- 23/1043517868(1), Dated 22.06.2022, Passed U/S. 144C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Paras Savla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram K, Sr. DR
Section 144C(5)Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

deducted at source. 3:3 The AO erred in not accepting the contentions and details submitted by the appellant on non-applicability of withholding tax provisions on payment made to VISA and Mastercard. 4:0 Re: Non-reduction of income taxed in earlier year On the facts and the circumstances

JCIT(OSD), RANGE-10, NEW DELHI , C.R. BUILDING ITO vs. RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPORATION LTD., KASTURBA NAGAR

ITA 609/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2020-21
For Appellant: \nShri Ashwani Taneja, AdvocateFor Respondent: \nMs. Pooja Swroop, CITDR
Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

view that it is relating to the interest paid by REC on foreign\ncurrency loans, utilized for its business, was subject to withholding tax\n(TDS) under Section 195 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it deemed to\naccrue or arise in India. It is not relevant

JCIT(OSD), RANGE-10, NEW DELHI , C.R. BUILDING ITO vs. RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPORATION LTD. , KASTURBA NAGAR

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue in the AY 2020-21 and AY\n2021-22 are dismissed

ITA 579/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Taneja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swroop, CITDR
Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

view that it is relating to the interest paid by REC on foreign\ncurrency loans, utilized for its business, was subject to withholding tax\n(TDS) under Section 195 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it deemed to\naccrue or arise in India. It is not relevant

JCIT(OSD), RANGE-10, NEW DELHI , CR BUILDING ITO vs. RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPORATION LTD. , KASTURBA NAGAR

ITA 578/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Taneja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swroop, CITDR
Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

view that it is relating to the interest paid by REC on foreign\ncurrency loans, utilized for its business, was subject to withholding tax\n(TDS) under Section 195 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it deemed to\naccrue or arise in India. It is not relevant

JCIT(OSD), RANGE-10, NEW DELHI , ITO C.R. BUILDING vs. RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPORATION LTD. , KASTURBA NAGAR

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue in the AY 2020-21 and AY\n2021-22 are dismissed

ITA 577/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Taneja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swroop, CITDR
Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

view that it is relating to the interest paid by REC on foreign\ncurrency loans, utilized for its business, was subject to withholding tax\n(TDS) under Section 195 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it deemed to\naccrue or arise in India. It is not relevant

REC LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT-10 (OSD), DELHI, NEW DELHI

ITA 320/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Taneja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swroop, CITDR
Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

view that it is relating to the interest paid by REC on foreign\ncurrency loans, utilized for its business, was subject to withholding tax\n(TDS) under Section 195 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it deemed to\naccrue or arise in India. It is not relevant

REC LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT-10 (OSD), DELHI, NEW DELHI

ITA 319/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Taneja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swroop, CITDR
Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

view that it is relating to the interest paid by REC on foreign\ncurrency loans, utilized for its business, was subject to withholding tax\n(TDS) under Section 195 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it deemed to\naccrue or arise in India. It is not relevant

BOOKING.COM B.V.,THE NETHERLANDS vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2033/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarbooking.Com B.V. Vs. Acit, Circle -1(1)(2) Oosterdokskade 163, International Taxation, 1011 Dl, Amsterdam, The Civic Centre, Minto Road, Netherlands, New Delhi – 110002 Haryana 122002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aagcb2395A Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. M.S. Nethrapal, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 151

Commission percentage set out in the Agreement.....” It is also pertinent to point out para 2.4.2 of the contract which puts the onus of withholding taxes and related compliances on the accommodations - "...2.4.2 The Accommodation is responsible for withholding and reporting relevant taxes (i.e. mentioned above in 2.4.1 under

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. MS. JAGSON COLORCHEM LIMITED, PHASE -II GIDC ESTATE VATVA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1437/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Years:2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 30Section 40

that order is reproduced below: 10. As noticed, the AO has also declined the deductibility of commission expenses on account of non-deduction of withholding tax under Section 195 of the Act and consequently invoked the provisions of Section 40(a)(i) of the Act to deny the deduction

FORT CANNING CREDIT INVESTMENTS PTE. LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) - 2(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2104/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2022-23 Fort Canning Investments Assistant Commissioner Of Pte. Ltd. Income-Tax (International 260 Orchard Road, #14-02 Taxation) - 2(3)(1) Vs. The Heeren, Singapore, Mumbai Singapore – 238855 (Pan: Aaccf9284G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2022-23 Fort Canning Credit Assistant Commissioner Of Investments Pte. Ltd. Income-Tax (International 260 Orchard Road #14-02 Taxation) - 2(3)(1) Vs. The Heeren, Singapore, Mumbai Singapore – 238855 (Pan: Aadcf7866R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Ms. Priyanka Agarwala, Ms.Hirali Desai, Ms. Nidhi Agarwal & Shri Yogesh Malpani, Cas Revenue : Shri Satya Pal Kumar, Cit Dr & Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2026 Fort Canning Investments Pte. Ltd. & Fort Canning Credit Investments Pte. Ltd. Ay 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT DR and Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 270A

cost of acquisition of debt, there shall be capital gain and tax liability. This position taken by the committee of creditors is based on withholding tax note issued by the advisors to the committee of creditors placed in the paper book. In order to avail the benefit of non taxability

Showing 1–20 of 663 · Page 1 of 34

...