← 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

Fort Canning Investments Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Taxation) - 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2103/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

Turf Estate Jv, Mumbai vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 20(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6923/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Ganatra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 90A

provisions on the said payments does not arise. (d) In summary, the consultancy services rendered by the three non-residents do not attract any withholding tax liability u/s 195 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in view of the provisions of sub section (2) of section

DCIT, CC 6(2), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse bearing ITA No

ITA 3282/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: ShriAbdulla PettiwalaFor Respondent: Shri RiteshMisra(CIT DR)a/w Shri
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 244ASection 250Section 37(1)Section 40Section 40(1)Section 43B

government treasury. Further, tax has been deducted at source on payments made to AMA and others per the rate mentioned in the lower withholding tax certificate under Section 197 provided by the AMA and others. Details of payments made to motor car dealers during the period 1 April

Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse bearing ITA No

ITA 2842/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2026AY 2017-18
For Appellant: ShriAbdulla PettiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra(CIT DR)a/w Shri
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 244ASection 250Section 37(1)Section 40Section 40(1)Section 43B

government treasury. Further, tax has been deducted at source on payments made to AMA and others per the rate mentioned in the lower withholding tax certificate under Section 197 provided by the AMA and others. Details of payments made to motor car dealers during the period 1 April

ITO It 1.2.2, Mumbai vs. Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5257/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 195Section 248Section 254Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

Double Taxation Avoidance Act ("DTAA"), the assessee filed appeal under 248 of the Act before the learned CIT(A), after payment of such withholding taxes by the assessee. The learned CIT(A), after considering the submissions of the assessee, decided the appeal in favour of the assessee following the decision ... India, the payment of transponder charges to Intelsat UK is not taxable in India. Consequently, the assessee submitted that it is not liable for withholding tax under section 195 of the Act while making payments of transponder service fees to Intelsat UK. 8. Pursuant to the opportunity granted

ITO It 1.2.2, Mumbai vs. Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5256/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 195Section 248Section 254Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

Double Taxation Avoidance Act (“DTAA”), the assessee filed appeal under 248 of the Act before the learned CIT(A), after payment of such withholding taxes by the assessee. The learned CIT(A), after considering the submissions of the assessee, decided the appeal in favour of the assessee following the decision ... transponder charges to Intelsat UK is not taxable in India. Consequently, the assessee submitted that it is not liable for withholding tax under section 195 of the Act while making payments of transponder service fees to Intelsat UK. 8. Pursuant to the opportunity granted by the learned

ITO It 1.2.2, Mumbai vs. Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5255/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 195Section 248Section 254Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

Double Taxation Avoidance Act ("DTAA"), the assessee filed appeal under 248 of the Act before the learned CIT(A), after payment of such withholding taxes by the assessee. The learned CIT(A), after considering the submissions of the assessee, decided the appeal in favour of the assessee following the decision ... India, the payment of transponder charges to Intelsat UK is not taxable in India. Consequently, the assessee submitted that it is not liable for withholding tax under section 195 of the Act while making payments of transponder service fees to Intelsat UK. 8. Pursuant to the opportunity granted

ITO It 1.2.2, Mumbai vs. Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5254/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 195Section 248Section 254Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

Double Taxation Avoidance Act ("DTAA"), the assessee filed appeal under 248 of the Act before the learned CIT(A), after payment of such withholding taxes by the assessee. The learned CIT(A), after considering the submissions of the assessee, decided the appeal in favour of the assessee following the decision ... India, the payment of transponder charges to Intelsat UK is not taxable in India. Consequently, the assessee submitted that it is not liable for withholding tax under section 195 of the Act while making payments of transponder service fees to Intelsat UK. 8. Pursuant to the opportunity granted

ITO It 1.2.2, Mumbai vs. Bennet Coleman & Co Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5253/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 195Section 248Section 254Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

Double Taxation Avoidance Act ("DTAA"), the assessee filed appeal under 248 of the Act before the learned CIT(A), after payment of such withholding taxes by the assessee. The learned CIT(A), after considering the submissions of the assessee, decided the appeal in favour of the assessee following the decision

ITO (It) 1.2.2, Mumbai vs. Bennet Coleman & Co Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5252/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2018-19
Section 195Section 248Section 254Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

Double Taxation Avoidance Act ("DTAA"), the assessee filed appeal under 248 of the Act before the learned CIT(A), after payment of such withholding taxes by the assessee. The learned CIT(A), after considering the submissions of the assessee, decided the appeal in favour of the assessee following the decision ... India, the payment of transponder charges to Intelsat UK is not taxable in India. Consequently, the assessee submitted that it is not liable for withholding tax under section 195 of the Act while making payments of transponder service fees to Intelsat UK. 8. Pursuant to the opportunity granted

ITO It 1.2.2, Mumbai vs. Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5251/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2018-19
Section 195Section 248Section 254Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

Double Taxation Avoidance Act ("DTAA"), the assessee filed appeal under 248 of the Act before the learned CIT(A), after payment of such withholding taxes by the assessee. The learned CIT(A), after considering the submissions of the assessee, decided the appeal in favour of the assessee following the decision ... India, the payment of transponder charges to Intelsat UK is not taxable in India. Consequently, the assessee submitted that it is not liable for withholding tax under section 195 of the Act while making payments of transponder service fees to Intelsat UK. 8. Pursuant to the opportunity granted

ITO It 1.2.2, Mumbai vs. Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5250/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2018-19
Section 195Section 248Section 254Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

Double Taxation Avoidance Act ("DTAA"), the assessee filed appeal under 248 of the Act before the learned CIT(A), after payment of such withholding taxes by the assessee. The learned CIT(A), after considering the submissions of the assessee, decided the appeal in favour of the assessee following the decision

ITO It 1.2.2, Mumbai vs. Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5249/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 195Section 248Section 254Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

Double Taxation Avoidance Act ("DTAA"), the assessee filed appeal under 248 of the Act before the learned CIT(A), after payment of such withholding taxes by the assessee. The learned CIT(A), after considering the submissions of the assessee, decided the appeal in favour of the assessee following the decision

ITO It 1.2.2, Mumbai vs. Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5248/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 195Section 248Section 254Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

Double Taxation Avoidance Act (“DTAA”), the assessee filed appeal under 248 of the Act before the learned CIT(A), after payment of such withholding taxes by the assessee. The learned CIT(A), after considering the submissions of the assessee, decided the appeal in favour of the assessee following the decision ... transponder charges to Intelsat UK is not taxable in India. Consequently, the assessee submitted that it is not liable for withholding tax under section 195 of the Act while making payments of transponder service fees to Intelsat UK. 8. Pursuant to the opportunity granted by the learned

ITO (It) 1.2.2, Mumbai vs. Bennet Coleman & Co Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5247/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 195Section 248Section 254Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

Double Taxation Avoidance Act ("DTAA"), the assessee filed appeal under 248 of the Act before the learned CIT(A), after payment of such withholding taxes by the assessee. The learned CIT(A), after considering the submissions of the assessee, decided the appeal in favour of the assessee following the decision ... transponder charges to Intelsat UK is not taxable in India. Consequently, the assessee submitted that it is not liable for withholding tax under section 195 of the Act while making payments of transponder service fees to Intelsat UK. 8. Pursuant to the opportunity granted by the learned

ITO (It) 1.2.2, Mumbai vs. Bennet Coleman & Co Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5246/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2018-19
Section 195Section 248Section 254Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

Double Taxation Avoidance Act ("DTAA"), the assessee filed appeal under 248 of the Act before the learned CIT(A), after payment of such withholding taxes by the assessee. The learned CIT(A), after considering the submissions of the assessee, decided the appeal in favour of the assessee following the decision ... India, the payment of transponder charges to Intelsat UK is not taxable in India. Consequently, the assessee submitted that it is not liable for withholding tax under section 195 of the Act while making payments of transponder service fees to Intelsat UK. 8. Pursuant to the opportunity granted

Acid, Circle-5(1), Kolkata vs. Emami Realty Limited, Kolkata

ITA 1457/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 143(3)Section 194ISection 2Section 250Section 50CSection 56Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(x)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C”BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant

Linkedin Technology Information Private Limited, Delhi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Delhi -4, Delhi

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

ITA 2492/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, CAFor Respondent: Shri Nethrapal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 195Section 263Section 40

made foreign remittances as FTS/FIS of the amount of Rs.8,61,10,484/- and foreign remittance as FTS of Rs.9,15,05,365/- without withholding tax. Thereafter, reassessment order was passed for A.Y. 2018-19 on 28.03.2023 under section 147 r.w.s 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Income tax

Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1789/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Darpan Kriplani, CAFor Respondent: Dr. KJ Dhivya, CIT (DR)

that no tangible benefit accrued, the TPO and DRP have travelled beyond their jurisdiction. 45.3 The assessee had furnished agreements, invoices, debit notes, and withholding tax details to substantiate that the services were actually rendered. Further, indirect tax in the form of GST/service tax has also been discharged on these

Saic Motor Corporation Ltd, China vs. DCIT, International Tax, Gurgaon

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

ITA 1191/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2022-23] Saic Motor Corporation Assistant Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax, International Taxation, Gurgaon, Room No.509, Building No.1, Vs Hsiidc Building, Vanijya Nikunj, Tower No.563, Songtao Road, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon, Pilot Free Trade Zone, Sanghai, Haryana-122001 China, Pan-Abfcs0870H Assessee Revenue Assessee By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Shri Kunal Pandey, Adv. Revenue By Shri Rohit Garg, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 10.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07.01.2026 Order

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153(1)

request of MGI. 在您与名爵印度签订的雇佣合同中,工资、奖金和其他权益(包括与工作相关的社会保险费) 将由名爵印度承担,但是,出于便捷的考虑,在名爵印度的要求下,公司可以替名爵印度支付您 在中国境内的部分工资及社会保险费。 6 MGI shall be responsible for complying with the requirements of withholding tax under the Indian tax laws, on your salary and other related en"tlements. Payment of taxes in China shall be your responsibility. 名爵印度对您的工资及其他相关权益遵循印度税法关于预提所得税的要求。在中国境内缴