← All Phrases

“withholding tax”

TDS / TCSSection 195Section 195663 judgments

The decision most relied on for withholding tax is Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. v. CIT (432 ITR 471), cited in 914 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on withholding tax

Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. v. CIT
432 ITR 471 · 2021 · Supreme Court
914
citing judgments

Payments for the supply or use of computer software, where there is no transfer of copyright but only a right to use the copyrighted product, are generally considered business profits and not 'royalty' or 'fees for technical services' under the Income Tax Act, 1961 or relevant DTAAs. This principle also applies to transponder fees, which are not taxable as royalty.

GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
327 ITR 456 · 2010 · Supreme Court
663
citing judgments

Tax must be deducted at source from payments made to a non-resident under Section 195 only if such payment is chargeable to tax in India. The Assessing Officer bears the onus to establish that the payments made are indeed chargeable to tax under the Income Tax Act.

CIT v. De Beers India Minerals (P.) Ltd.
346 ITR 467 · 2012 · High Court
371
citing judgments

For fees for technical or consultancy services to 'make available' technical knowledge or know-how under a DTAA, the service must transmit such knowledge, allowing the recipient to derive an enduring benefit and utilize it independently in the future.

Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. v. DIT
332 ITR 340 · 2011 · High Court
359
citing judgments

Payments for the use of equipment, such as satellite transponders, do not constitute 'royalty' under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, or under applicable tax treaties, especially when there is no transfer of the right to use a process or underlying technology.

DIT v. New Skies Satellite BV
382 ITR 114 · 2016 · High Court
325
citing judgments

An amendment to the Income Tax Act, such as the Finance Act, 2012 amendment to Section 9(1)(vi) defining royalty, does not automatically override or alter the definition of 'royalty' as provided in a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) unless the DTAA itself is bilaterally amended. The definition of royalty in a DTAA remains unaffected by unilateral changes to domestic law.

CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft
310 ITR 320 · 2009 · High Court
259
citing judgments

Reimbursements of actual expenses without any profit element are not taxable income. Additionally, mere amendments to the Income-tax Act do not override the provisions of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs).

Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh v. CIT
239 ITR 587 · 1999 · Supreme Court
243
citing judgments

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.

CIT v. Eli Lily & Co.
312 ITR 225 · 2009 · Supreme Court
221
citing judgments

Section 195 of the Income Tax Act, which mandates tax withholding on payments to non-residents, applies only to sums that are otherwise chargeable to tax under the Act. Tax withholding provisions are not charging provisions.

Judgments citing withholding tax

Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS Circle 1(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the Stay Applications filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2215/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2201 & 2202, 2203 & 2204, 2205, 2209, 2211 & 2212, 2213 & 2214 & 2215/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2020-21, 2021-22, 2015- 16, 2018-19 & 2019-20 & S.A. Nos. 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74 & 75/Chny/2024 [In I.T.A. Nos.2201, 2202, 2203, 2204, 2205, 2209, 2211, 2212, 2213, 2214 & 2215/Chny/2024] Cognizant Technology Solutions India Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, No. 5/535, Okkiyam Income Tax, Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Circle 1(1), Road, Chennai 600 097. Chennai. [Pan:Aaacd3312M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C. Murugesan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.11.2024 & 03.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Eleven Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate, But, Identical Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai For The Assessment Years Mentioned Hereinabove. Out Of The Above Appeals, The Appeals In Ita Nos. 2201/Chny/2024, 2203/Chny/2024, 2205/Chny/2024, 2209/Chny/2024

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C. Murugesan, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 201Section 201(1)

deducted on remaining amount. Further, the assessee contended that no income accrued to the vendors at the time of creation of provision and withholding tax provisions are not applicable. The assessee further contended that the assessee cannot be deemed to be an “assessee in default” and requested the Assessing Officer ... applicable. 8. Further, he vehemently argued that since no income accrued to the vendors at the time of creation of provision and withholding tax provisions not applicable. Further, he contended that the assessee cannot be I.T.A. Nos. 2201 & 2202, 2203 & 2204, 2205, 2209, 6 2211 & 2212, 2213 & 2214 and 2215/Chny/2024

Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation 1(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the Stay Applications filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2214/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2201 & 2202, 2203 & 2204, 2205, 2209, 2211 & 2212, 2213 & 2214 & 2215/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2020-21, 2021-22, 2015- 16, 2018-19 & 2019-20 & S.A. Nos. 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74 & 75/Chny/2024 [In I.T.A. Nos.2201, 2202, 2203, 2204, 2205, 2209, 2211, 2212, 2213, 2214 & 2215/Chny/2024] Cognizant Technology Solutions India Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, No. 5/535, Okkiyam Income Tax, Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Circle 1(1), Road, Chennai 600 097. Chennai. [Pan:Aaacd3312M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C. Murugesan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.11.2024 & 03.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Eleven Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate, But, Identical Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai For The Assessment Years Mentioned Hereinabove. Out Of The Above Appeals, The Appeals In Ita Nos. 2201/Chny/2024, 2203/Chny/2024, 2205/Chny/2024, 2209/Chny/2024

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C. Murugesan, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 201Section 201(1)

deducted on remaining amount. Further, the assessee contended that no income accrued to the vendors at the time of creation of provision and withholding tax provisions are not applicable. The assessee further contended that the assessee cannot be deemed to be an “assessee in default” and requested the Assessing Officer ... applicable. 8. Further, he vehemently argued that since no income accrued to the vendors at the time of creation of provision and withholding tax provisions not applicable. Further, he contended that the assessee cannot be I.T.A. Nos. 2201 & 2202, 2203 & 2204, 2205, 2209, 6 2211 & 2212, 2213 & 2214 and 2215/Chny/2024

Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation 1(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the Stay Applications filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2212/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2201 & 2202, 2203 & 2204, 2205, 2209, 2211 & 2212, 2213 & 2214 & 2215/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2020-21, 2021-22, 2015- 16, 2018-19 & 2019-20 & S.A. Nos. 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74 & 75/Chny/2024 [In I.T.A. Nos.2201, 2202, 2203, 2204, 2205, 2209, 2211, 2212, 2213, 2214 & 2215/Chny/2024] Cognizant Technology Solutions India Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, No. 5/535, Okkiyam Income Tax, Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Circle 1(1), Road, Chennai 600 097. Chennai. [Pan:Aaacd3312M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C. Murugesan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.11.2024 & 03.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Eleven Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate, But, Identical Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai For The Assessment Years Mentioned Hereinabove. Out Of The Above Appeals, The Appeals In Ita Nos. 2201/Chny/2024, 2203/Chny/2024, 2205/Chny/2024, 2209/Chny/2024

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C. Murugesan, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 201Section 201(1)

deducted on remaining amount. Further, the assessee contended that no income accrued to the vendors at the time of creation of provision and withholding tax provisions are not applicable. The assessee further contended that the assessee cannot be deemed to be an “assessee in default” and requested the Assessing Officer ... applicable. 8. Further, he vehemently argued that since no income accrued to the vendors at the time of creation of provision and withholding tax provisions not applicable. Further, he contended that the assessee cannot be I.T.A. Nos. 2201 & 2202, 2203 & 2204, 2205, 2209, 6 2211 & 2212, 2213 & 2214 and 2215/Chny/2024

Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS Circle 1(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the Stay Applications filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2211/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2201 & 2202, 2203 & 2204, 2205, 2209, 2211 & 2212, 2213 & 2214 & 2215/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2020-21, 2021-22, 2015- 16, 2018-19 & 2019-20 & S.A. Nos. 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74 & 75/Chny/2024 [In I.T.A. Nos.2201, 2202, 2203, 2204, 2205, 2209, 2211, 2212, 2213, 2214 & 2215/Chny/2024] Cognizant Technology Solutions India Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, No. 5/535, Okkiyam Income Tax, Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Circle 1(1), Road, Chennai 600 097. Chennai. [Pan:Aaacd3312M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C. Murugesan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.11.2024 & 03.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Eleven Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate, But, Identical Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai For The Assessment Years Mentioned Hereinabove. Out Of The Above Appeals, The Appeals In Ita Nos. 2201/Chny/2024, 2203/Chny/2024, 2205/Chny/2024, 2209/Chny/2024

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C. Murugesan, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 201Section 201(1)

deducted on remaining amount. Further, the assessee contended that no income accrued to the vendors at the time of creation of provision and withholding tax provisions are not applicable. The assessee further contended that the assessee cannot be deemed to be an “assessee in default” and requested the Assessing Officer ... applicable. 8. Further, he vehemently argued that since no income accrued to the vendors at the time of creation of provision and withholding tax provisions not applicable. Further, he contended that the assessee cannot be I.T.A. Nos. 2201 & 2202, 2203 & 2204, 2205, 2209, 6 2211 & 2212, 2213 & 2214 and 2215/Chny/2024

Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), TDS Circle 1(1) (Erstwhile Jurisdiction), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the Stay Applications filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2209/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2201 & 2202, 2203 & 2204, 2205, 2209, 2211 & 2212, 2213 & 2214 & 2215/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2020-21, 2021-22, 2015- 16, 2018-19 & 2019-20 & S.A. Nos. 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74 & 75/Chny/2024 [In I.T.A. Nos.2201, 2202, 2203, 2204, 2205, 2209, 2211, 2212, 2213, 2214 & 2215/Chny/2024] Cognizant Technology Solutions India Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, No. 5/535, Okkiyam Income Tax, Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Circle 1(1), Road, Chennai 600 097. Chennai. [Pan:Aaacd3312M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C. Murugesan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.11.2024 & 03.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Eleven Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate, But, Identical Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai For The Assessment Years Mentioned Hereinabove. Out Of The Above Appeals, The Appeals In Ita Nos. 2201/Chny/2024, 2203/Chny/2024, 2205/Chny/2024, 2209/Chny/2024

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C. Murugesan, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 201Section 201(1)

deducted on remaining amount. Further, the assessee contended that no income accrued to the vendors at the time of creation of provision and withholding tax provisions are not applicable. The assessee further contended that the assessee cannot be deemed to be an “assessee in default” and requested the Assessing Officer ... applicable. 8. Further, he vehemently argued that since no income accrued to the vendors at the time of creation of provision and withholding tax provisions not applicable. Further, he contended that the assessee cannot be I.T.A. Nos. 2201 & 2202, 2203 & 2204, 2205, 2209, 6 2211 & 2212, 2213 & 2214 and 2215/Chny/2024

Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax (OSD), TDS Circle 1(1) (Erstwhile Jurisdiction), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the Stay Applications filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2205/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2201 & 2202, 2203 & 2204, 2205, 2209, 2211 & 2212, 2213 & 2214 & 2215/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2020-21, 2021-22, 2015- 16, 2018-19 & 2019-20 & S.A. Nos. 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74 & 75/Chny/2024 [In I.T.A. Nos.2201, 2202, 2203, 2204, 2205, 2209, 2211, 2212, 2213, 2214 & 2215/Chny/2024] Cognizant Technology Solutions India Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, No. 5/535, Okkiyam Income Tax, Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Circle 1(1), Road, Chennai 600 097. Chennai. [Pan:Aaacd3312M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C. Murugesan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.11.2024 & 03.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Eleven Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate, But, Identical Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai For The Assessment Years Mentioned Hereinabove. Out Of The Above Appeals, The Appeals In Ita Nos. 2201/Chny/2024, 2203/Chny/2024, 2205/Chny/2024, 2209/Chny/2024

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C. Murugesan, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 201Section 201(1)

deducted on remaining amount. Further, the assessee contended that no income accrued to the vendors at the time of creation of provision and withholding tax provisions are not applicable. The assessee further contended that the assessee cannot be deemed to be an “assessee in default” and requested the Assessing Officer ... applicable. 8. Further, he vehemently argued that since no income accrued to the vendors at the time of creation of provision and withholding tax provisions not applicable. Further, he contended that the assessee cannot be I.T.A. Nos. 2201 & 2202, 2203 & 2204, 2205, 2209, 6 2211 & 2212, 2213 & 2214 and 2215/Chny/2024

Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, International Taxation 1(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the Stay Applications filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2204/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2201 & 2202, 2203 & 2204, 2205, 2209, 2211 & 2212, 2213 & 2214 & 2215/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2020-21, 2021-22, 2015- 16, 2018-19 & 2019-20 & S.A. Nos. 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74 & 75/Chny/2024 [In I.T.A. Nos.2201, 2202, 2203, 2204, 2205, 2209, 2211, 2212, 2213, 2214 & 2215/Chny/2024] Cognizant Technology Solutions India Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, No. 5/535, Okkiyam Income Tax, Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Circle 1(1), Road, Chennai 600 097. Chennai. [Pan:Aaacd3312M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C. Murugesan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.11.2024 & 03.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Eleven Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate, But, Identical Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai For The Assessment Years Mentioned Hereinabove. Out Of The Above Appeals, The Appeals In Ita Nos. 2201/Chny/2024, 2203/Chny/2024, 2205/Chny/2024, 2209/Chny/2024

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C. Murugesan, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 201Section 201(1)

deducted on remaining amount. Further, the assessee contended that no income accrued to the vendors at the time of creation of provision and withholding tax provisions are not applicable. The assessee further contended that the assessee cannot be deemed to be an “assessee in default” and requested the Assessing Officer ... applicable. 8. Further, he vehemently argued that since no income accrued to the vendors at the time of creation of provision and withholding tax provisions not applicable. Further, he contended that the assessee cannot be I.T.A. Nos. 2201 & 2202, 2203 & 2204, 2205, 2209, 6 2211 & 2212, 2213 & 2214 and 2215/Chny/2024

Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS Circle 1(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the Stay Applications filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2203/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2201 & 2202, 2203 & 2204, 2205, 2209, 2211 & 2212, 2213 & 2214 & 2215/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2020-21, 2021-22, 2015- 16, 2018-19 & 2019-20 & S.A. Nos. 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74 & 75/Chny/2024 [In I.T.A. Nos.2201, 2202, 2203, 2204, 2205, 2209, 2211, 2212, 2213, 2214 & 2215/Chny/2024] Cognizant Technology Solutions India Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, No. 5/535, Okkiyam Income Tax, Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Circle 1(1), Road, Chennai 600 097. Chennai. [Pan:Aaacd3312M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C. Murugesan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.11.2024 & 03.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Eleven Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate, But, Identical Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai For The Assessment Years Mentioned Hereinabove. Out Of The Above Appeals, The Appeals In Ita Nos. 2201/Chny/2024, 2203/Chny/2024, 2205/Chny/2024, 2209/Chny/2024

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C. Murugesan, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 201Section 201(1)

deducted on remaining amount. Further, the assessee contended that no income accrued to the vendors at the time of creation of provision and withholding tax provisions are not applicable. The assessee further contended that the assessee cannot be deemed to be an “assessee in default” and requested the Assessing Officer ... applicable. 8. Further, he vehemently argued that since no income accrued to the vendors at the time of creation of provision and withholding tax provisions not applicable. Further, he contended that the assessee cannot be I.T.A. Nos. 2201 & 2202, 2203 & 2204, 2205, 2209, 6 2211 & 2212, 2213 & 2214 and 2215/Chny/2024

Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS Circle 1(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the Stay Applications filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2201/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2201 & 2202, 2203 & 2204, 2205, 2209, 2211 & 2212, 2213 & 2214 & 2215/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2020-21, 2021-22, 2015- 16, 2018-19 & 2019-20 & S.A. Nos. 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74 & 75/Chny/2024 [In I.T.A. Nos.2201, 2202, 2203, 2204, 2205, 2209, 2211, 2212, 2213, 2214 & 2215/Chny/2024] Cognizant Technology Solutions India Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, No. 5/535, Okkiyam Income Tax, Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Circle 1(1), Road, Chennai 600 097. Chennai. [Pan:Aaacd3312M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C. Murugesan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.11.2024 & 03.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Eleven Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate, But, Identical Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai For The Assessment Years Mentioned Hereinabove. Out Of The Above Appeals, The Appeals In Ita Nos. 2201/Chny/2024, 2203/Chny/2024, 2205/Chny/2024, 2209/Chny/2024

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C. Murugesan, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 201Section 201(1)

deducted on remaining amount. Further, the assessee contended that no income accrued to the vendors at the time of creation of provision and withholding tax provisions are not applicable. The assessee further contended that the assessee cannot be deemed to be an “assessee in default” and requested the Assessing Officer ... applicable. 8. Further, he vehemently argued that since no income accrued to the vendors at the time of creation of provision and withholding tax provisions not applicable. Further, he contended that the assessee cannot be I.T.A. Nos. 2201 & 2202, 2203 & 2204, 2205, 2209, 6 2211 & 2212, 2213 & 2214 and 2215/Chny/2024

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 13(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Olive Bar & Kitchen Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6255/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt. Renu Jauhriolive Bar & Kitchen Pvt. V/S. Acit, Circle-13(1)(1), बनाम Ltd. Mumbai 14 Union Park, Palli Hill Maharashtra-400020 Tourist Hotel Pvt. Ltd, Palli Hill Road, Khar West, Mumbai-400052 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaco5346G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Dcit, Circle-13(1)(2), V/S. Olive Bar & Kitchen Pvt. Mumbai बनाम Ltd. R. No. 218, Aayakar 14 Union Park, Palli Hill Bhavan, M K Road, Tourist Hotel Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai, Palli Hill Road, Khar West, Maharashtra-400020 Mumbai-400052 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaco5346G Appellant/अपीलार्थी Respondent/प्रतिवादी ..

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh RajoraFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pmnani
Section 250Section 35D(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(lit)Section 37(1)

also expressly permitted to revise their Income Tax returns, and other returns filed under the Tax Laws and to claim refunds, advance tax and withholding tax credits, etc. as applicable pursuant to the provisions of this Scheme.” In the light of above facts, Ld. AR has requested that the matter

Olive Bar and Kitchen Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 13(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5924/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt. Renu Jauhriolive Bar & Kitchen Pvt. V/S. Acit, Circle-13(1)(1), बनाम Ltd. Mumbai 14 Union Park, Palli Hill Maharashtra-400020 Tourist Hotel Pvt. Ltd, Palli Hill Road, Khar West, Mumbai-400052 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaco5346G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Dcit, Circle-13(1)(2), V/S. Olive Bar & Kitchen Pvt. Mumbai बनाम Ltd. R. No. 218, Aayakar 14 Union Park, Palli Hill Bhavan, M K Road, Tourist Hotel Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai, Palli Hill Road, Khar West, Maharashtra-400020 Mumbai-400052 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaco5346G Appellant/अपीलार्थी Respondent/प्रतिवादी ..

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh RajoraFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pmnani
Section 250Section 35D(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(lit)Section 37(1)

also expressly permitted to revise their Income Tax returns, and other returns filed under the Tax Laws and to claim refunds, advance tax and withholding tax credits, etc. as applicable pursuant to the provisions of this Scheme.” In the light of above facts, Ld. AR has requested that the matter

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai vs. Saipem India Projects Private Limited, Chennai

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 2319/CHNY/2024[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jan 2025

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2264/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2319/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Acit M/S. Saipem India Projects Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Corporate Circle-3(1), 4, Fourth Lane Yaralagadda Towers Chennai. Off Nungambakkam High Road, Vs. Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aaaci-7915-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S.P. Chidambaram (Advocate) – Ld.Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07-01-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15-01-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Revenue For Assessment Years (Ays) 2017- 18 & 2018-19 Have Identical Facts & Issues. First, We Take Up Appeal For Ay 2017-18 Which Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-16 [Cit(A)] On 28-06- 2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram (Advocate) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40

foreign entity i.e., Saipem, Italy but did not deduct tax at source on the ground that such software payments do not require withholding tax u/s 195. It was submitted that the relevant agreement provide for limited right to use copyrighted article and therefore, no TDS would be required considering

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Saipem India Projects Private Limited, Kanchipuram

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 2264/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2264/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2319/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Acit M/S. Saipem India Projects Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Corporate Circle-3(1), 4, Fourth Lane Yaralagadda Towers Chennai. Off Nungambakkam High Road, Vs. Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aaaci-7915-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S.P. Chidambaram (Advocate) – Ld.Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07-01-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15-01-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Revenue For Assessment Years (Ays) 2017- 18 & 2018-19 Have Identical Facts & Issues. First, We Take Up Appeal For Ay 2017-18 Which Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-16 [Cit(A)] On 28-06- 2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram (Advocate) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40

foreign entity i.e., Saipem, Italy but did not deduct tax at source on the ground that such software payments do not require withholding tax u/s 195. It was submitted that the relevant agreement provide for limited right to use copyrighted article and therefore, no TDS would be required considering