← 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

The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 76/AHD/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, and Shri Parin Shah, Ars
Section 250(6)Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

technical services, and found that even in terms of provisions of typical Article 12 of DTAA the impugned amounts were taxable in India and withholding taxes provisions applicable. He therefore disallowed the entire amount as noted by him above, paid to non- residents amounting to Rs.67,33,167/- under section ... residents from such remittance is not taxable in India. Further, it is well settled principle that in the absence of taxable income, withholding tax provisions under section 195 do not apply. In view of the above, disallowance in respect of above remittances to USA towards legal and professional services

The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 73/AHD/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, and Shri Parin Shah, Ars
Section 250(6)Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

technical services, and found that even in terms of provisions of typical Article 12 of DTAA the impugned amounts were taxable in India and withholding taxes provisions applicable. He therefore disallowed the entire amount as noted by him above, paid to non- residents amounting to Rs.67,33,167/- under section ... residents from such remittance is not taxable in India. Further, it is well settled principle that in the absence of taxable income, withholding tax provisions under section 195 do not apply. In view of the above, disallowance in respect of above remittances to USA towards legal and professional services

Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 52/AHD/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, and Shri Parin Shah, Ars
Section 250(6)Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

technical services, and found that even in terms of provisions of typical Article 12 of DTAA the impugned amounts were taxable in India and withholding taxes provisions applicable. He therefore disallowed the entire amount as noted by him above, paid to non- residents amounting to Rs.67,33,167/- under section ... residents from such remittance is not taxable in India. Further, it is well settled principle that in the absence of taxable income, withholding tax provisions under section 195 do not apply. In view of the above, disallowance in respect of above remittances to USA towards legal and professional services

Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 51/AHD/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, and Shri Parin Shah, Ars
Section 250(6)Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

technical services, and found that even in terms of provisions of typical Article 12 of DTAA the impugned amounts were taxable in India and withholding taxes provisions applicable. He therefore disallowed the entire amount as noted by him above, paid to non- residents amounting to Rs.67,33,167/- under section ... residents from such remittance is not taxable in India. Further, it is well settled principle that in the absence of taxable income, withholding tax provisions under section 195 do not apply. In view of the above, disallowance in respect of above remittances to USA towards legal and professional services

Kddi Corporation, Japan vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Taxation), Circle 2(1), Bangalore, Karnataka, Japan

ITA 102/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.P. Nos. 7 To 9/Bang/2024 (In It(It)A Nos. 100 To 102/Bang/2024) & It(It)A Nos. 100 To 102/Bang/2024

For Appellant: Shri Arjit Prasad, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Subash K R, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(3)Section 147Section 148Section 201

S.P. Nos. 7 to 9/Bang/2024 & IT(IT)A Nos. 100 to 102/Bang/2024 Page 1 of 32 IN THE INCOME TAX

Kddi Corporation, Japan vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Taxation), Circle 2(1), Bangalore, Karnataka

ITA 101/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.P. Nos. 7 To 9/Bang/2024 (In It(It)A Nos. 100 To 102/Bang/2024) & It(It)A Nos. 100 To 102/Bang/2024

For Appellant: Shri Arjit Prasad, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Subash K R, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(3)Section 147Section 148Section 201

Page 1 of 32 S.P. Nos. 7 to 9/Bang/2024 & IT(IT)A Nos. 100 to 102/Bang/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX

Kddi Corporation, Japan vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Taxation), Circle 2(1), Bangalore, Karnataka

ITA 100/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.P. Nos. 7 To 9/Bang/2024 (In It(It)A Nos. 100 To 102/Bang/2024) & It(It)A Nos. 100 To 102/Bang/2024

For Appellant: Shri Arjit Prasad, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Subash K R, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(3)Section 147Section 148Section 201

Page 1 of 32 S.P. Nos. 7 to 9/Bang/2024 & IT(IT)A Nos. 100 to 102/Bang/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX

Ayesa Ingenieria Y Arquitectura S.A., Noida vs. ACIT Intl. Taxation, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2174/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Sarin, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 192BSection 195Section 201Section 40Section 7(3)

liable to be deleted. 8. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the entire salary amount payable to expatriate employees has suffered withholding tax under Section 192B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the same cannot be again subjected to withholding tax under Section ... liable to be deleted. 2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the entire salary amount payable to expatriate employees has suffered withholding tax under Section 192B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the same cannot be again subjected to withholding tax under Section

Ayesa Ingenieria Y Arquitectura S.A., Noida vs. ACIT Intl. Taxation, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2173/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Sarin, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 192BSection 195Section 201Section 40Section 7(3)

liable to be deleted. 8. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the entire salary amount payable to expatriate employees has suffered withholding tax under Section 192B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the same cannot be again subjected to withholding tax under Section ... liable to be deleted. 2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the entire salary amount payable to expatriate employees has suffered withholding tax under Section 192B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the same cannot be again subjected to withholding tax under Section

Ces Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 474/HYD/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2020-21 Ces Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 1(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aadcs4564P. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Sr. Ar. Date Of Hearing: 19.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Sr. AR
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 154Section 37(1)Section 90

fact that the US branch income was duly considered in the books of the CES Limited and offered to tax in India and necessary withholding taxes on the same income paid in US has been claimed as per DTAA and Section ... Assessee has already included the US branch income in the books of account and offered to tax in India and the necessary withholding taxes on the same income is paid in US and the same has been claimed as per DTAA as per section 90 of the Act. 2.7.The assessee

Anurag Dikshit, C/O Ernst and Young LLP vs. Centralised Processing Centre of Income Tax Department, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3888/MUM/2023[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalanurag Dikshit, Vs. The Income Tax Officer C/O Ernst & Young Llp (It)2(1)(1), Air India 14Th Floor, The Ruby, Building, Nariman Point, Dadar West, Maharashtra Mumbai - 400021 400028 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aeepd3232M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Nikhil Tiwari & Bhumik Vasa Respondent By : Manoj Kumar Sinha Date Of Hearing 05.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15.03.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-56, Dated 21.09.2023 For A.Y. 2021-22. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. The Learned Cit(A), On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Erred In Not Assessing The Correct Income Of The Appellant By Holding That The Learned Ao Had No Power To Reduce The Income Offered By The Appellant. 2. The Learned Cit(A), On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Erred In Not Reducing The Corresponding Rent Income Of Inr 32,54, 155 From The Returned Income Of Ay: 2021-22, While Disallowing The Corresponding Tds Credit Of Inr 13,77,757 Claimed In The Return Of Income. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Vary, Omit, Substitute Or Amend Any Or All Of The Above Grounds Of Appeal, At Any Time Before Or At, The Time Of The Appeal, So As To Enable The Hon'Ble Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal To Decide This Appeal According To Law.”

For Appellant: Nikhil Tiwari &For Respondent: Manoj Kumar Sinha
Section 154

Rs.7,24,04,940/- because the TCS to which the assessee had let out his premises on rent had revised its withholding tax return since the premises was occupied till 15.03.2021 because of termination of the lease of the premises. The CPC has carried out the rectification ... only after receiving the rectification order u/s 154 of the Act the assessee came to know that TCS had filed its revised withholding tax return because the property was given for rent only for 11 and half month. Therefore, there was difference of Rs.3,25,14,155/- of rent reported

ACIT Circle- 3(1)(2), Intl. Taxation, New Delhi vs. Siemens International Trading Ltd., Shanghai

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

ITA 8429/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

with the aforesaid contract on which tax of Rs.24,105,620/- was deducted. The said tax was deducted by IRL on the basis of withholding tax certificate issued by ITO, Ward-3(1)(2), (Int. Tax), Delhi u/s 197 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. The assessee had filed ... underlying receipts from the contract is not taxable was submitted before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings and while obtaining the lower withholding tax certificate from ITO, Ward-3(1)(2), (Int. Tax), Delhi under section 197 of the Act pursuant to which the Assessee was granted

Siemens International Trading Ltd., Shanghai vs. ITO, Ward- 3(1)(2), Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

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

ITA 7275/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

with the aforesaid contract on which tax of Rs.24,105,620/- was deducted. The said tax was deducted by IRL on the basis of withholding tax certificate issued by ITO, Ward-3(1)(2), (Int. Tax), Delhi u/s 197 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. The assessee had filed ... underlying receipts from the contract is not taxable was submitted before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings and while obtaining the lower withholding tax certificate from ITO, Ward-3(1)(2), (Int. Tax), Delhi under section 197 of the Act pursuant to which the Assessee was granted

Superb Mind Holding Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle Int Tax 3(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1568/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1568/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19

Section 112Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

Company X claims that under the tax treaty between States A and B, it is entitled to full or partial exemption from the domestic withholding taxes provided for under the tax legislation of State B. Company X is wholly- owned by a resident of third State ... source-based taxation of interest income of banks, whereby interest arising in India to Mauritian resident banks will be subject to I.T.A.No.1568/Del/2022 withholding tax in India at the rate of 7.5% in respect of debt claims or loans made after 31st March, 2017. However, interest income of Mauritian resident

M/S. International Tractors Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT(Ltu), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3811/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshinternational Tractors Ltd, Vs. Dcit (Ltu), Sonalika House, 282, Nbcc Plaza, Pushp Agcr Enclave, Vihar, Sector-Iii, Karkardooma, Delhi- New Delhi 110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaci2270H Dcit (Ltu) International Tractors Ltd, New Delhi Sonalika House, 282, Agcr Enclave, Karkardooma, Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaci2270H

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Bhutani, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80J

amount of Rs. 51,21,024/- claimed by the assessee, a sum of Rs. 24,78,391/- was not allowed, for the reason, that withholding tax had not been deducted by the assessee. 13.2 It is pertinent to note that the assessee had disclosed the same in its statement/communication dated

DCIT(Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S. International Tractors Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3663/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshinternational Tractors Ltd, Vs. Dcit (Ltu), Sonalika House, 282, Nbcc Plaza, Pushp Agcr Enclave, Vihar, Sector-Iii, Karkardooma, Delhi- New Delhi 110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaci2270H Dcit (Ltu) International Tractors Ltd, New Delhi Sonalika House, 282, Agcr Enclave, Karkardooma, Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaci2270H

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Bhutani, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80J

amount of Rs. 51,21,024/- claimed by the assessee, a sum of Rs. 24,78,391/- was not allowed, for the reason, that withholding tax had not been deducted by the assessee. 13.2 It is pertinent to note that the assessee had disclosed the same in its statement/communication dated

Pramod Tarade, Raigad vs. CIT ( NFAC ), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 898/PUN/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.898/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Pramod Tarade, The Commissioner Of A-2, Sai Ameya Chs, Plot V Income Tax,[Nfac]. No.28, Sector-12, Kharghar, S Panvel, Raigad – 410210. Maharashtra. Pan: Aevpt9870L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Tarun G – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Delhi Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2021-22 Passed On 24.06.2023 Emanating From Order Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.12.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under : “1. The Order Of The Cit(A) Nfac, Dt. 24-06-2023 For The A.Y. 2021 -22 Is Contrary To Law & Facts & In The Circumstances Of Pramod Tarade [A]

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 90

return of income filed and claimed the foreign tax credit as per Section 90 of Income Tax Act 1961. The proof of withholding tax have been annexed in Annexure II. 4. The Return of Income filed by the Appellant was processed and intimation U/S 143(1) dated 22/03/2022 was issued ... allowed which subsequently was noticed that the Form 67 was not filed. 5. The Appellant filed the form 67 along with the withholding Tax proof vide acknowledgement No 409237730040822 dated 04/08/2022 towards foreign tax credit claimed in the return of income for salary income earned at Norway. Copy

Leapfrog, Gulmohar Park vs. ITO, Ward 29(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 1774/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaleapfrog, Vs. Ito, Ward 29 (1), A-14, Third Floor, New Delhi. Gulmohar Park, New Delhi – 110 049. (Pan : Aaatl3565D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nitin Kanwar, Advocate Shri Rajeev Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.01.2024 Date Of Order : 14.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri Nitin Kanwar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 271(1)(c)Section 3

receipts and therefore, there is no concealment. Further, assessee submitted that it must be noted that the tax deducted at source is only a withholding tax which can be more or less than the actual tax payable. AO noted that in this case of the assessee, the tax deducted

DCIT, Circle-7(1), New Delhi vs. D. Light Energy Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 596/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Or During The Hearing Of This Appeal. 3. The Brief Facts Qua The Issue Raised Is That The Assessee

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

during the course of assessment proceedings. Further, the complete details of amounts paid as well as taxes deducted appear in the underlying withholding tax returns along with name and PAN of the parties. No further details were called for from the Appellant. d) The aforesaid expenditure is genuine ... Appellant has duly discharged its liability for withholding tax on the impugned payments in respect of commission which can be further corroborated from the tax audit report duly verified by the tax auditors of the Appellant (refer pages 581 to 593 of the paperbook). Further, any disallowance on account

JCIT, Special Range-1, New Delhi vs. Axis Risk Consulting Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2920/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. Anupama Singh, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 40Section 40a

made to Ztek Consulting Inc. (Ztek) pursuant to Master Staffing Services Agreement (MSA) entered into by the assessee with Ztek. The assessee contends that withholding tax provisions are not applicable on such payments on the ground that recruitment or placement agency do not come under the purview