← 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

Myntra Inc., United States of America vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, grounds of appeal no

ITA 3770/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Naveen Chandraआअसं.3770/धिल्ली/2023(नि.व. 2021-22) Myntra Inc. 8201, 164Th Ave Ne, Suited 200, Redmond, Wa 98052, ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant United States Of America, 98052 Pan Aalcm-3409-K बिाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle International Tax 2(2)(1), Civic Centre, .....प्रनिवादी/Respondent Minto Road, New Delhi 110002 अपीलार्थी द्वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Sachit Jolly, Sr. Advocate With Ms. Rashi Khanna, Advocate प्रधिवािीद्वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Anjula Jain, Cit (Dr) & Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. Dr सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date Of Hearing : 12/09/2025 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 10/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act,1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 16.10.2023, For Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. Shri Sachit Jolly, Sr. Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee At The Outset Submitted That On Instructions From The Assessee/Appellant He Is Not 2 Pressing Ground No. 2 Of Appeal, Assailing Validity Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) Directions Sans Din. In Light Of The Statement Made By Ld. Counsel For The Assessee At Bar, Ground Of Appeal No. 2 Is Dismissed As Not Pressed.

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Rashi Khanna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anjula Jain, CIT (DR) &
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vii)

dated 16.12.2022 at page no. 188 to 197 of the paper book. In said submissions, the assessee has also claimed that provisions of withholding tax u/s.192 of the Act have also been compiled at the time of remitting the monthly salary. However, no supporting document was furnished to this effect