“withholding tax”

Airport Authority of India, New Delhi vs. ITO (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

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

nature of FTS and chargeable in India under the Act and India – USA DTAA. He, therefore held that the assessee is under obligation to withhold tax from these payments u/s 195 of the I.T. Act. In our opinion, the matter requires a re- visit to the file of the Assessing ... stated therein that the said payment is not taxable in India. The request of the applicant to permit remittance without deducting withholding tax was not acceptable to the Ld. ITO as he treated the receipts in the hands of MITRE as taxable Fee for Included Service (“FIS”). He, therefore passed

Airport Authority of India, New Delhi vs. ITO (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

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

nature of FTS and chargeable in India under the Act and India – USA DTAA. He, therefore held that the assessee is under obligation to withhold tax from these payments u/s 195 of the I.T. Act. In our opinion, the matter requires a re- visit to the file of the Assessing ... stated therein that the said payment is not taxable in India. The request of the applicant to permit remittance without deducting withholding tax was not acceptable to the Ld. ITO as he treated the receipts in the hands of MITRE as taxable Fee for Included Service (“FIS”). He, therefore passed

Amit Jain, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle International Taxation 2(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the lower authorities and is forming part of the records. It is not in dispute that the services were rendered by the assessee only in Netherlands during the year under consideration. However, the assessee was also sent on deputation to India on behalf of Akzo Netherlands. For administrative convenience, the Amit Jain vs. ACIT Page 3 of 9

assessee received salary in India from Akzo Nobel India in respect of the services rendered outside India to Akzo Netherlands. In order to ensure withholding tax compliance laid down u/s 192 of the Act, Akzo Nobel India Ltd deducted tax at source on the salary paid in India and deposited

The Golden State Capital Pte Ltd, Singapore vs. DCIT Circle 3(1)(1), International Taxation, Delhi

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganeshthe Golden State Capital Pte Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 31, Tanglin Road, #03,-04, St. Circle-3(1)(1), Regis Residences, Singapore, International Taxation, Singapore, Singapore, 247912 Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aagct8026Q Assessee By : Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv Shri Anmol, Adv Shri Priya, Adv Revenue By: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 31/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 23/08/2023

repayment payable by the Assessee to its holding company. The ld AO‟s case is that since the said loan repayment does not suffer withholding tax in Singapore and the sale proceeds of shares would not get taxed even in BVI upon repatriation owing to the characterization as loan repayment

Jagson International Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-13(1), Delhi

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2017-18 Jagson International Ltd., Vs Dcit, H-35, 1St Floor, Circle-13(1), Jangpura Extension, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 014. Pan: Aaacj2147A Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Vs. Jagson International Ltd., H-35, 1St Floor, Circle-13(1), Delhi Jangpura Extension, New Delhi – 110 014. Pan: Aaacj2147A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Saxena, Ms Sumangla Saxena & Shri Shyam Sunder, Advocates Revenue By : Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.08.2023

Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee also made an alternative claim that the said payment is not subjected to withholding tax in India due to operation of DTAA between India and UAE. The assessee also placed reliance on the decision of the ld.CIT ... claim of the assessee is that it had only imported Rigs from the non-resident payee and the same would not be liable for withholding tax, but, from the invoice raised by the payee on the assessee which is enclosed in page 548 of the paper book, the same specifies

JCIT Circle-13(1), New Delhi vs. Jagson International Ltd., New Delhi

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2017-18 Jagson International Ltd., Vs Dcit, H-35, 1St Floor, Circle-13(1), Jangpura Extension, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 014. Pan: Aaacj2147A Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Vs. Jagson International Ltd., H-35, 1St Floor, Circle-13(1), Delhi Jangpura Extension, New Delhi – 110 014. Pan: Aaacj2147A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Saxena, Ms Sumangla Saxena & Shri Shyam Sunder, Advocates Revenue By : Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.08.2023

Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee also made an alternative claim that the said payment is not subjected to withholding tax in India due to operation of DTAA between India and UAE. The assessee also placed reliance on the decision of the ld.CIT ... claim of the assessee is that it had only imported Rigs from the non-resident payee and the same would not be liable for withholding tax, but, from the invoice raised by the payee on the assessee which is enclosed in page 548 of the paper book, the same specifies

Amazon Web Services, Inc., Usa vs. ACIT Circle International Tax 1(1)(1), New Delhi

Accordingly, ground No. 3 along with its sub-grounds 3.1 to 3.4, ground No. 4 and ground No. 5 along with its sub-ground 5.1 r.w ground No. 2 are allowed

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

applied Explanation 2(iva) under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act in order to hold the assessee as having defaulted for non deducting withholding tax. First of all, main provisions of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act are not attracted as the payment made by assessee ... cannot make the assessee liable to deduct tax at source. In other words, the assessee is not liable to deduct withholding tax and such non deduction of withholding tax does not render the assessee in default and consequently, no disallowance of amount paid as web hosting charges

Amazon Web Services, Inc., Usa vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), New Delhi

Accordingly, ground No. 3 along with its sub-grounds 3.1 to 3.4, ground No. 4 and ground No. 5 along with its sub-ground 5.1 r.w ground No. 2 are allowed

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

applied Explanation 2(iva) under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act in order to hold the assessee as having defaulted for non deducting withholding tax. First of all, main provisions of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act are not attracted as the payment made by assessee ... cannot make the assessee liable to deduct tax at source. In other words, the assessee is not liable to deduct withholding tax and such non deduction of withholding tax does not render the assessee in default and consequently, no disallowance of amount paid as web hosting charges

JCIT (OSD) Circle-77(1), New Delhi vs. Sistema Shyam Teleservices Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2013-14

main issues in the appeal agitated by the appellant are- i) Whether the AO could raise demand for non deduction of withholding tax on year end provisions booked in the expense account and mentioned in Form 3CD by passing an order u/s 154 of the IT Act? ii) Whether ... correct in holding that the assessee was in default for non deduction of withholding tax on year end provisions booked in the expense account and mentioned in Form 3CD. 5.6 Regarding the first point it is seen that the AO has passed order