← 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

Asstt. CIT (It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1092/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Milind S. Chavan, SR DR
Section 195Section 9

Intelsat global sales and marketing, UK and (3) MEAST satellite system, Malaysia. Assessee applied for an order u/s 195 (2) for Nil withholding tax certificates for payment of transponder services fees payable to the service providers. 04. The learned assessing officer rejected it holding that these payments are chargeable ... charges paid by the assessee to the above referred to 3 entities are not taxable in India and therefore assessee cannot be asked to withhold tax on these payments. 06. Learned assessing officer is aggrieved with the above order and therefore has preferred all these appeals

Asstt. CIT (It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1091/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Milind S. Chavan, SR DR
Section 195Section 9

Intelsat global sales and marketing, UK and (3) MEAST satellite system, Malaysia. Assessee applied for an order u/s 195 (2) for Nil withholding tax certificates for payment of transponder services fees payable to the service providers. 04. The learned assessing officer rejected it holding that these payments are chargeable ... charges paid by the assessee to the above referred to 3 entities are not taxable in India and therefore assessee cannot be asked to withhold tax on these payments. 06. Learned assessing officer is aggrieved with the above order and therefore has preferred all these appeals

Asstt. CIT (It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1090/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Milind S. Chavan, SR DR
Section 195Section 9

Intelsat global sales and marketing, UK and (3) MEAST satellite system, Malaysia. Assessee applied for an order u/s 195 (2) for Nil withholding tax certificates for payment of transponder services fees payable to the service providers. 04. The learned assessing officer rejected it holding that these payments are chargeable ... charges paid by the assessee to the above referred to 3 entities are not taxable in India and therefore assessee cannot be asked to withhold tax on these payments. 06. Learned assessing officer is aggrieved with the above order and therefore has preferred all these appeals

Asstt. CIT (It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1089/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Milind S. Chavan, SR DR
Section 195Section 9

Intelsat global sales and marketing, UK and (3) MEAST satellite system, Malaysia. Assessee applied for an order u/s 195 (2) for Nil withholding tax certificates for payment of transponder services fees payable to the service providers. 04. The learned assessing officer rejected it holding that these payments are chargeable ... charges paid by the assessee to the above referred to 3 entities are not taxable in India and therefore assessee cannot be asked to withhold tax on these payments. 06. Learned assessing officer is aggrieved with the above order and therefore has preferred all these appeals

Asstt. CIT (It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1088/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Milind S. Chavan, SR DR
Section 195Section 9

Intelsat global sales and marketing, UK and (3) MEAST satellite system, Malaysia. Assessee applied for an order u/s 195 (2) for Nil withholding tax certificates for payment of transponder services fees payable to the service providers. 04. The learned assessing officer rejected it holding that these payments are chargeable ... charges paid by the assessee to the above referred to 3 entities are not taxable in India and therefore assessee cannot be asked to withhold tax on these payments. 06. Learned assessing officer is aggrieved with the above order and therefore has preferred all these appeals

Asstt. CIT (It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1067/MUM/2021[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Milind S. Chavan, SR DR
Section 195Section 9

Intelsat global sales and marketing, UK and (3) MEAST satellite system, Malaysia. Assessee applied for an order u/s 195 (2) for Nil withholding tax certificates for payment of transponder services fees payable to the service providers. 04. The learned assessing officer rejected it holding that these payments are chargeable ... charges paid by the assessee to the above referred to 3 entities are not taxable in India and therefore assessee cannot be asked to withhold tax on these payments. 06. Learned assessing officer is aggrieved with the above order and therefore has preferred all these appeals

Travelport International Operations Limited, Berkshire vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Int. Tax-3, New Delhi

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

ITA 9711/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 154Section 40Section 40a

entire amount (100%) claimed by the assessee on account of other expenses such as royalty, vendor cost, license fee owing to non-deduction of withholding tax. From the above table, the position of the profit/loss of the assessee is evident. After deduction of the distribution expenses and 15% booking

ACIT (It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 523/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

Section 195Section 195(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

Officer under section 195(2) of 2 Viamcom18 Media Private Limited the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) directing the assessee to withhold tax on payments to non resident Companies. 2. The issue in dispute involved in these appeals being identical, permeating from same set of facts ... involved in a number of cases, therefore the same is divided together. The assessee applied for an order u/s 195 (2) for nil withholding tax certificate for payment of transponder service fees to the above service providers. The Assessing Officer rejected the assessee's application observing as under: "The submission

Xchanging Solutions Limited, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 556/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Raghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arunkumar, CIT(DR)(TP)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 10A(4)Section 143(3)Section 155

envisaged under Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and thus, has erred in holding that the same is subject to withholding tax. 8.2 The learned AO has erred in law and on facts, by holding that the above payments are in the nature of royalty ... prejudice to other grounds, the learned AO has failed to appreciate that during impugned Financial Year 2009- 10, the Appellant was not liable to withhold tax on the payments made as there was no provision under the Act, or the relevant DTAA, mandating the deduction of tax at source

ITO, Bangalore vs. M/S Xchanging Solutions Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 402/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Raghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arunkumar, CIT(DR)(TP)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 10A(4)Section 143(3)Section 155

envisaged under Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and thus, has erred in holding that the same is subject to withholding tax. 8.2 The learned AO has erred in law and on facts, by holding that the above payments are in the nature of royalty ... prejudice to other grounds, the learned AO has failed to appreciate that during impugned Financial Year 2009- 10, the Appellant was not liable to withhold tax on the payments made as there was no provision under the Act, or the relevant DTAA, mandating the deduction of tax at source

Xchanging Solutions Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 492/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Raghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arunkumar, CIT(DR)(TP)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 10A(4)Section 143(3)Section 155

envisaged under Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and thus, has erred in holding that the same is subject to withholding tax. 8.2 The learned AO has erred in law and on facts, by holding that the above payments are in the nature of royalty ... prejudice to other grounds, the learned AO has failed to appreciate that during impugned Financial Year 2009- 10, the Appellant was not liable to withhold tax on the payments made as there was no provision under the Act, or the relevant DTAA, mandating the deduction of tax at source

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Xchanging Solutions Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 459/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Raghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arunkumar, CIT(DR)(TP)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 10A(4)Section 143(3)Section 155

envisaged under Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and thus, has erred in holding that the same is subject to withholding tax. 8.2 The learned AO has erred in law and on facts, by holding that the above payments are in the nature of royalty ... prejudice to other grounds, the learned AO has failed to appreciate that during impugned Financial Year 2009- 10, the Appellant was not liable to withhold tax on the payments made as there was no provision under the Act, or the relevant DTAA, mandating the deduction of tax at source

M/S Orkla Asia Pacific Pte Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (It) Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 193/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Orkla Asia Pacific Pte Ltd., The Deputy C/O Mtr Foods Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 1, 2Nd & 3Rd Floor, Income Tax (It), 100 Feet Inner Ring Road, Asmnt, Circle – 2(1), Ejipura, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 047. Pan: Aabco4087B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Advocate : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 03-11-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-12-2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Final Assessment Order Dated 17/12/2018 Passed U/S. 143 (3) By The Ld.Dcit, Asmnt, Circle-2(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Hereinafter Are Without Prejudice To One Another. 1. Barred By Limitation The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer ('Learned Ao') Is Barred By Limitation In View Of The Express Provisions Of Section 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act') Wherein, The Order Should Be Passed Within One Month From The End Of The Month In Which Dispute

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, Advocate
Section 143Section 144C(13)Section 234ASection 234BSection 9(1)(vii)

three) per cent on the costs payable by MT R except for costs representing out-of-pocket expenses and externally purchased services, 13. Withholding taxes. If the service fee is subject to withholding taxes, such amounts shall be withheld and paid by MTR to Indian tax authorities, at the applicable ... rates from time to time. Proof of such withholding taxes paid shall be provided by MTR to OAP by way of appropriate certificates. 14. VAT If the service fee is subject to VAT or similar levies, such amounts shall be paid by M TR. However, the Parties agree

M/S.Nds Limited, Bangalore vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 364/BANG/2017[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Dec 2021AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A No. 364/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S. Synamedia Ltd. [Formerly Known As ‘Nds Limited’], The Assistant C/O. M/S. Synamedia India Pvt. Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, Block 9A & 9B, Pritech Park, International Survey No. 51-64/4, Taxation, Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Vs. Circle – 1(2), Bellandur Village, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan: Aabcn2524L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Advocate : Shri Dilip, Standing Revenue By Counsel For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 16-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-12-2021

For Appellant: Shri
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234B

impugned receipts were to be considered as Royalty/FTS taxable in India, the entire such receipts of the appellant were liable to be subjected to withholding tax provisions of the Act and accordingly, there was no requirement for the Appellant to pay advance tax in respect of such receipts. The Appellant

ACIT, Circle- 28(1), New Delhi vs. Chadha Power, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3055/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Yagyasaini Kakkar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 40

being made. Further, the allowability of expenditure of Rs.1,30,51,5681- needs to be examined from another dimension i.e. deduction and deposit of withholding tax. As per the provisions of section 40(a)(i) any amount paid to a non-resident i.e. Chadha Projects JLT in the present case ... have been utilized in India and hence the income of Chadha Projects JL T for providing such services is taxable in India. Since no withholding tax has been deducted on such payment reimbursed to Chadha Projects JL T along with mark up of 10% the said expenditure needs

Harish N Salve, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 61(1), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7356/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Amit Shukla

Section 143(3)Section 37Section 90

which it had paid tax of Rs.11,69,22,726.6 (corresponding US £ 12,64,588.63) and apart from that, assessee had also suffered withholding tax to the extent of Rs.2,00,174.8 (corresponding US £ 2,165.01). He submitted that the corresponding income was offered to tax and assessee had only

ACIT Circlie-19, New Delhi vs. Pawan Kansal, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 830/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh. T. Kipgen CIT/DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80G

account of undervaluation of closing stock, (iii) Rs.6,55,770/- on account of disallowance of expenses on account of non-deduction of withholding tax and (iv) Rs.2,78,310/- on account of disallowance of donation u/s. 80G. Assessee challenged the additions at Sl. No. (i) to (iii) above

ACIT, International Taxation, Circle-1(2)(2), New Delhi vs. Datamine International Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6383/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 6383/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Acit, Vs Datamine International Ltd., International Taxation, (Now Cae Datamine International Circle-1(2)(2), Ltd.), A-41, Ground Floor, Mohan New Delhi Cooperative Industrial Area, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacd7600A Assessee By : Sh. V. K. Aggarwal, Ar Revenue By : None Date Of Hearing: 29.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.11.2021

For Appellant: Sh. V. K. Aggarwal, ARFor Respondent: None
Section 9(1)(vi)

rejects Revenue's reliance placed on the E-Commerce Report 2016 that proposed equalization levy on specified digital services and also recommended that withholding tax on digital transactions would require an express inclusion in tax treaties in order to be feasible. SC points out that these reports do not carry

ACIT, Circle-76(1), New Delhi vs. Tv 18 Broadcast Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2208/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Sanjay Garg(Through Video Conferencing) Acit Vs. Tv 18 Broadcast Ltd., Circle – 76(1) 414,1St Floor, Empire New Delhi Complex, Lower Parel Mumbai, Murtijapur, Maharashtra – 110 001 Pan : Aaccg 3666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ved Jain, C.A. Revenue By Shri Jagdish Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 07.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.11.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am:

Section 143(3)Section 271CSection 40

income to the account of the payee" have been used. The use of such word itself proves that for the purpose of deduction of withholding tax (TDS) identification of payee is mandatory. Unless the payee is identified who if the beneficiary of a credit of tax deduction at source, mechanism

M/S. Bain & Company India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO (TDS) (International Taxation), New Delhi

ITA 2845/DEL/2016[2009-10 (F.Y. 2008-09)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2021
For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Sinha &For Respondent: Shri Umesh Takiyar, Sr. DR

Support Services' and 'Administrative Services' given and expenses incurred. (xii) Bain USA acknowledges that currently the Indian government may impose a withholding tax of 10 % on payments relating to Information distribution services. This tax may apply to the agreement and if it does apply, the tax shall be borne ... Bain USA. Bain USA also acknowledges that 10 % withholding tax may apply to some of the Professional Support charges and where it does apply, the tax shall be borne by Bain USA.” 4. He noted that apart from computer expenses and royalty, all remittances are related to support services rendered