← 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

Foseco India Limited, Pune vs. ACIT, Circle 1 (1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2014-15 is dismissed

ITA 1114/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Atul PoddarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 115Section 115JSection 237

stands today also provides that humbly prayed that dividend income of the non-resident technical difficulty shall hold shareholder suffers withholding tax u's 195 no ground to restrain the of the Act subject to benefits available under refund entitled to the the DTAA; appellant and requested the Ld. ACTT

Dassault SystÈMes Soildworks Corporaion, Chennai vs. ACIT (International Taxation)_2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4534/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Kumar, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, D/R
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 9(1)(vi)

Report 2016 proposed an equalization levy to be chargeable on specified digital services (see paragraph 11.2) and noted that its recommendation to impose a withholding tax on digital transactions would require an express inclusion in tax treaties in order to be feasible, as follows: "108. After taking cognizance of these ... observations, the Committee considers that the option of "withholding tax" offers a practical way of allocating partial taxing rights in respect of income from digital economy, which shares attributes that may be similar to royalty or fee for technical services, and which can be complied in respect of B2B transactions

Suzlon Energy Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT(OSD) Circle-8, Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1621/AHD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Oct 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 90

Grounds of Appeal: 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that no credit can be given for withholding tax of Rs.1,05,43,697/- during the year under consideration on Royalty income received from China. 2. The learned CIT(A) has failed ... facts in directing AO to restrict credit u/s. 115JAA of the Act claimed in the subsequent year to the extent of withholding tax allowed in the current year. 5. Both the lower authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the facts and they further erred in grossly ignoring various

The DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Suzlon Energy Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1517/AHD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Oct 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 90

Grounds of Appeal: 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that no credit can be given for withholding tax of Rs.1,05,43,697/- during the year under consideration on Royalty income received from China. 2. The learned CIT(A) has failed ... facts in directing AO to restrict credit u/s. 115JAA of the Act claimed in the subsequent year to the extent of withholding tax allowed in the current year. 5. Both the lower authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the facts and they further erred in grossly ignoring various

M/S. Tirubala International Private Limited, Kanpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-VI, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 147/LKW/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2014-15 Tirubala International Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of C-7, Panki Industrial Area, Vs. Income Tax, Range-Vi, Kanpur Kanpur, U.P. Pan:Aaect2086J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Vikas Garg, Fca Revenue By: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2024 O R D E R Per Sh. Nikhil Choudhary: This Is An Appeal Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee That Was Filed Against The Order Of The Dcit-6, Kanpur Passed On 19.12.2016. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Ao, Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Making An Addition Of Rs. 29,164/- On Account Of Late Payment Towards Employees Contribution To Esi. 2. That The Authorities Below Have Failed To Appreciate That The Payment Of Rs.29,164 Towards Employee'S Contribution To Provident Fund Was Made Before The "Due Date" Of Filing Return Of Income U/S 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 Therefore There Could Not Be Any Addition Of The Aforesaid Amount To The Returned Income. 3. That The Authorities Below Have Failed To Appreciate That The Due Date As Mentioned In 36(1) (Va) Is To Be Read In Conjunction With Section 43B(B)

For Appellant: Sh. Vikas Garg, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 195Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

treaty read with paragraph 7 of the protocol to the treaty. Therefore the service provided by Aitex, is business income and not subject to withholding taxes in India in the absence of Permanent Establishment of Aitex in India and TDS has rightly not been deducted on payments made to Aitex

Nihilent Limited, Pune vs. PCIT-2, Pune

ITA 929/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Prakash
Section 139Section 263Section 90

revision proceedings it has admitted its claim of Rs.95,32,362/- out of the total claim of FTC remains to be supported by the withholding tax certificates. (e) Therefore, it becomes evident that a large part of the relief of Rs.3,92,97,432/- out of the total claim under

Nihilent Limited, Pune vs. PCIT, Pune

ITA 928/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Prakash
Section 139Section 263Section 90

revision proceedings it has admitted its claim of Rs.95,32,362/- out of the total claim of FTC remains to be supported by the withholding tax certificates. (e) Therefore, it becomes evident that a large part of the relief of Rs.3,92,97,432/- out of the total claim under

Shri Nagin A Vaghela, Vadodara vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-3, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for A

ITA 270/AHD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyali.T(Ss).A. Nos.449/Ahd/2019 & 44/Ahd/2020 (A.Ys.: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Shri Nagin A. Vaghela, Tax, 11, Purva Bunglow, Nr. Central Circle-3, Manglam Duple, Sama, Vadodara Vadodara [Pan No.Aakpw5302R] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR & Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 158B

returned income before filing the appeal. The amendment had been brought on the statute book with some specific purpose of discouraging the assessee from withholding tax due even on the returned income by filing an appeal before the concerned authority and to get the benefit on the basis of good

Shri Nagin A Vaghela, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-3, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for A

ITA 1562/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyali.T(Ss).A. Nos.449/Ahd/2019 & 44/Ahd/2020 (A.Ys.: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Shri Nagin A. Vaghela, Tax, 11, Purva Bunglow, Nr. Central Circle-3, Manglam Duple, Sama, Vadodara Vadodara [Pan No.Aakpw5302R] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR & Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 158B

returned income before filing the appeal. The amendment had been brought on the statute book with some specific purpose of discouraging the assessee from withholding tax due even on the returned income by filing an appeal before the concerned authority and to get the benefit on the basis of good

Asst Commissioner of Income Tax-16(2), Mumbai vs. Azb and Partners, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3382/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Sunil M. LalaFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 90

claimed credit of Rs.79,78,570/- in the income-tax return filed in India. The AO was of the view that credit of such withholding tax was not allowable to the assessee in India as these receipts were not taxable in those countries. The AO also noticed that ... year. The AO stated that since the income of the assessee was not subject to tax in Japan, Nepal and Singapore, therefore, credit for withholding tax of Rs.78,26,428/- from Japan, Rs.67,335/- from Singapore and Rs.84,807/- from Nepal were not allowed to the assessee. 5. The aggrieved

Asst Commissioner of Income Tax- 16(2), Mumbai vs. Azb and Partners, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3381/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Sunil M. LalaFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 90

claimed credit of Rs.79,78,570/- in the income-tax return filed in India. The AO was of the view that credit of such withholding tax was not allowable to the assessee in India as these receipts were not taxable in those countries. The AO also noticed that ... year. The AO stated that since the income of the assessee was not subject to tax in Japan, Nepal and Singapore, therefore, credit for withholding tax of Rs.78,26,428/- from Japan, Rs.67,335/- from Singapore and Rs.84,807/- from Nepal were not allowed to the assessee. 5. The aggrieved

Alstom Sa, France vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1444/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 234Section 234C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AVDHESH

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

ITA 4105/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm

Section 14Section 143Section 36Section 41

Assessee vide letter dated 12/3/2000 date has clarified that the foreign taxes paid is of ₹ 582,463,026/– however the Double Taxation Relief and withholding tax claimed by the assessee is only ₹ 522,365,018/– and therefore the relief was allowed to that extent only. The learned assessing officer

DCIT 2(2), Mumbai vs. State Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2006 – 07 and 2007 – 08 is partly allowed

ITA 4952/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm A.Y.2006-07 [ By Assessee] &

Section 14Section 143Section 36Section 41

Assessee vide letter dated 12/3/2000 date has clarified that the foreign taxes paid is of ₹ 582,463,026/– however the Double Taxation Relief and withholding tax claimed by the assessee is only ₹ 522,365,018/– and therefore the relief was allowed to that extent only. The learned assessing officer

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment

ITA 3868/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm

Section 14Section 143Section 36Section 41

Assessee vide letter dated 12/3/2000 date has clarified that the foreign taxes paid is of ₹ 582,463,026/– however the Double Taxation Relief and withholding tax claimed by the assessee is only ₹ 522,365,018/– and therefore the relief was allowed to that extent only. The learned assessing officer

Legend Surface Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 2363/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanlegend Surface Developers Private Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward 75 (2), 127-A, Central Avenue, New Delhi. Sainik Farms, New Delhi – 110 062. (Pan : Aabcl3143M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By : Shri Vijay B Vasanta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 30.09.2024 Date Of Order : 04.10.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman, Am:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B Vasanta, CIT(DR)
Section 133ASection 195Section 201Section 201(1)

well as on facts while ignoring the fact as per the agreement with M/s RBI Marketing (Netherlands) B.V. and Fowls Ltd, the withholding tax liability on payment to these parties was to be borne by the appellant. The Appellant also filed the case against M/s RBI Marketing, Netherlands and Fowls ... reiterated the claim. It has been stated that the agreement of the appellant with the Non-Resident company stipulated grossing-up, i.e. any withholding tax was to be borne by the payer. The appellant had deducted TDS u/s 195 of the Act amounting to Rs.1

Culver Max Entertinment Private Limited (Formerly Known As Sony Pictures Network India Private Limited Erstwhile Multi Screen Media Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle 16(9), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

ITA 3360/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Culver Max Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., The Cit(A), Nfac, The Asst. Cit, (Formerly Known As Sony Pictures Circle 16(9), Room 439, 4Th Floor, Vs. Networks India Pvt. Ltd.), Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Interface Building 7, 4Th Floor, Off Road, Malad Link Road, Malad (W), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400064 Pan No. Aabcs 1728 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Nitesh Joshi &For Respondent: 22/08/2024
Section 37Section 40Section 90

Appellant submitted a rectified claim of assessment proceedings the Appellant submitted a rectified claim of Rs.72,75,701/- - Before me, it claims that a withholding tax certificate by one deductor, M/s Before me, it claims that a withholding tax certificate by one deductor, M/s Before me, it claims that ... withholding tax certificate by one deductor, M/s Netflix Inc. was received after the fil Netflix Inc. was received after the filing of the revised ROI and completion ing of the revised ROI and completion of assessment proceedings, and hence, an additional claim of deduction of of assessment proceedings, and hence

Red Hat India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle- 15 (3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 215/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanm/S. Red Hat India Pvt. Ltd., A-201, Supreme Business Park, Supreme City, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai – 400 076, Pan No. : Aabcr7091N. ….. Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain, Ms. Nikhila Bhalla and Archita Bhalla Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kamat Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(10)

that the Appellant acts as a limited risk distributor and earns assured margins on revenue in ‘Subscription segment’; f) disregarding the fact that due withholding taxes were deducted on the service payment made to the AE; and g) Disregarding the remand proceedings directed during DRP proceedings, wherein the benchmarking

DCIT-14(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bnp Paribas Securities India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1404/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-14(1)(1), M/S Bnp Paribas Securities India Room No. 432, 4Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. 8Th Floor, 1 North Avenue, Maker Mumbai-400020. Maxity Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East)- Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadcb 4690 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Mr. Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 35D

which tax was deducted at source under section 192 of the Act. which tax was deducted at source under section 192 of the Act. Withholding tax Withholding tax returns filed by BNPP SIPL (evidencing deduction of tax returns filed by BNPP SIPL (evidencing deduction of tax at source from salaries

India Opportunities Fund I F.C.R De Regimen Comun, Spain vs. DCIT (International Taxation) 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4536/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Singhal/ Mohit
Section 143(3)Section 197Section 90

failed to acknowledge the fact that the speaking order under sec. 197 of the Act (passed in response to the application of Nil / Lower Withholding Tax certificate) was not even shared with the Appellant. Hence, in the absence of any knowledge of the contents of such purported order