← 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

DCIT 3.2.1, Mumbai vs. The New India Assurance Co Limited, Mumbai

ITA 2827/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar&
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "I" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -3(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2618/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2013-14
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "I" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Kisan International Trading Fze, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Int. Tax 2(1)(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal field by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6152/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Kisan International Trading Fze, Vs. Acit, Circle C/O Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate Int. Tax 2(1)(2), C – 179, Mansarover Garden, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 015. (Pan :Aaeck0424D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate Shri Sandeep Yadav, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date Of Order : 19.11.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi – 43 [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 06.12.2024 For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That On Facts & In Law The Order Dated 06Th December 2024 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Cit(A)'} & Order Dated 23Rd December 2019 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Ao") Are Bad In Law & Void Ab Initio.

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 115A(5)Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 251

resident of UAE and the only source of income derived by it from India was interest income received by it from IFFCO on which withholding tax @ 12.5% has been deducted. In this regard, we reproduce sub-section (5) of section 115A as under: “Section 115A(5) It shall ... foreign entity, he should have initiated the investigation before forming an opinion. It is fact on record that the TRCs, SEBI-FPI status withholding tax certificate, board resolutions, Singapore tax records, and other statutory filings and documentary evidence submitted and accepted by the Income Tax Department and other Revenue Authorities

Argos Holdings Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Int Tax 1(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3633/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR
Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 194LSection 1ISection 260Section 6(3)Section 6(3)(ii)

adding Rs. 448 Crore (NCD subscription) and Rs. 8,24,81,096 (interest income) as the Appellant’s “undisclosed income” by denying treaty and withholding tax benefits, to thereafter raise a demand of Rs. 5,259,040,290. Similarly, vide Order dated 31st March ... SEBI Category III FPI Registration Certificate: o Certificate of Registration (No. INSGFP028814 dated 30.10.2014). o PB Reference: AY15–16 PB-1 p.41. 3. Withholding Tax Compliance: o Section 194LD TDS certificates on NCD interest and Form 26AS extracts, evidencing due withholding of tax in India. o PB Reference: AY15

Argos Holdings Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Int Tax 1(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3632/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR
Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 194LSection 1ISection 260Section 6(3)Section 6(3)(ii)

adding Rs. 448 Crore (NCD subscription) and Rs. 8,24,81,096 (interest income) as the Appellant’s “undisclosed income” by denying treaty and withholding tax benefits, to thereafter raise a demand of Rs. 5,259,040,290. Similarly, vide Order dated 31st March ... SEBI Category III FPI Registration Certificate: o Certificate of Registration (No. INSGFP028814 dated 30.10.2014). o PB Reference: AY15–16 PB-1 p.41. 3. Withholding Tax Compliance: o Section 194LD TDS certificates on NCD interest and Form 26AS extracts, evidencing due withholding of tax in India. o PB Reference: AY15

Aka Ausfuhrkredit-Gesellschaft Mbh, Outside India vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Int Tax Circle 1(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1766/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 115A(1)(b)Section 147Section 148Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

information placed on record, the management fee/processing fee was in the nature of rendering of the services and this remittance was liable to withholding taxes within the definition of Fee for Technical Services (FTS) under the provisions of ITA No.- 1766/Del/2025 Section 9(1)(vi) of the income tax

Redington Distribution Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. DCIT, International Tax Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the captioned appeals (ITA Nos

ITA 1527/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. Percy Pardiwalla, SeniorFor Respondent: Ms, E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 244ASection 250

prays that the learned AO be directed to exclude revenues earned from sale of software licenses from the assessed income and to refund the withholding taxes suffered by the Appellant thereon. 4. Without prejudice to the above, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in rejecting the alternative please

Redington Distribution Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. DCIT, International Tax Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the captioned appeals (ITA Nos

ITA 1526/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. Percy Pardiwalla, SeniorFor Respondent: Ms, E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 244ASection 250

prays that the learned AO be directed to exclude revenues earned from sale of software licenses from the assessed income and to refund the withholding taxes suffered by the Appellant thereon. 4. Without prejudice to the above, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in rejecting the alternative please

Redington Distribution Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. DCIT, International Tax Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the captioned appeals (ITA Nos

ITA 1525/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. Percy Pardiwalla, SeniorFor Respondent: Ms, E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 244ASection 250

prays that the learned AO be directed to exclude revenues earned from sale of software licenses from the assessed income and to refund the withholding taxes suffered by the Appellant thereon. 4. Without prejudice to the above, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in rejecting the alternative please

Redington Distribution Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. DCIT, International Tax Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the captioned appeals (ITA Nos

ITA 1524/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. Percy Pardiwalla, SeniorFor Respondent: Ms, E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 244ASection 250

prays that the learned AO be directed to exclude revenues earned from sale of software licenses from the assessed income and to refund the withholding taxes suffered by the Appellant thereon. 4. Without prejudice to the above, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in rejecting the alternative please

Redington Distribution Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. DCIT, International Tax Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the captioned appeals (ITA Nos

ITA 1523/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. Percy Pardiwalla, SeniorFor Respondent: Ms, E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 244ASection 250

prays that the learned AO be directed to exclude revenues earned from sale of software licenses from the assessed income and to refund the withholding taxes suffered by the Appellant thereon. 4. Without prejudice to the above, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in rejecting the alternative please

Redington Distribution Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. DCIT, International Tax Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the captioned appeals (ITA Nos

ITA 1522/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. Percy Pardiwalla, SeniorFor Respondent: Ms, E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 244ASection 250

prays that the learned AO be directed to exclude revenues earned from sale of software licenses from the assessed income and to refund the withholding taxes suffered by the Appellant thereon. 4. Without prejudice to the above, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in rejecting the alternative please

Redington Distribution Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. DCIT, International Tax Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the captioned appeals (ITA Nos

ITA 1521/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. Percy Pardiwalla, SeniorFor Respondent: Ms, E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 244ASection 250

prays that the learned AO be directed to exclude revenues earned from sale of software licenses from the assessed income and to refund the withholding taxes suffered by the Appellant thereon. 4. Without prejudice to the above, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in rejecting the alternative please

Redington Distribution Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. DCIT, Intl Tax Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the captioned appeals (ITA Nos

ITA 1520/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. Percy Pardiwalla, SeniorFor Respondent: Ms, E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 244ASection 250

prays that the learned AO be directed to exclude revenues earned from sale of software licenses from the assessed income and to refund the withholding taxes suffered by the Appellant thereon. 4. Without prejudice to the above, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in rejecting the alternative please

M/S. Redington Distribution Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. DCIT, Intl Tax Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the captioned appeals (ITA Nos

ITA 1519/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. Percy Pardiwalla, SeniorFor Respondent: Ms, E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 244ASection 250

prays that the learned AO be directed to exclude revenues earned from sale of software licenses from the assessed income and to refund the withholding taxes suffered by the Appellant thereon. 4. Without prejudice to the above, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in rejecting the alternative please

Mount Meru India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Central Ward-2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 4293/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi a/w Ms. Aadnya BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad,(CIT DR)
Section 143(3)Section 90

credit is claimed is already offered to tax and this fact was also submitted before the Ld. CIT(A); and: iv. The credit of Withholding Taxes in Foreign Jurisdictions is in the nature of prepaid taxes and should have been granted in the absence of any finding adverse ... avail the opportunity under the principles of natural justice. The assessee merely stated that he had overseas income and was in receipt of withholding tax credit amounting to Rs.14,85,033/- on which relief u/s 90 of the Act was claimed. However, it was not able to substantiate the claim

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 partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2346/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

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

functioning and efficiency across business segments of the assessee. It was argued that the assessee has furnished corporate service agreements, debit notes, invoices, withholding tax forms, and other documents as evidence of actual rendition of services, and therefore the blanket rejection by the TPO is unjustified. 39.3 The assessee further ... applicable service tax/GST liability on such payments. Thus, the transactions have already been subjected to taxation in India both through indirect tax levy and withholding tax obligations. To disallow the payments now by characterizing them as yielding no services or benefits would amount to double taxation, which is impermissible

Jayaram Reddy Boopesh Reddy, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Bengaluru

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

ITA 711/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Bharat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

learned AR are distinguishable from the facts involve in the present case. In those cases, dispute revolving around non-deduction of withholding tax under section 195 of the Act on payment made to foreign companies not having PE India. 50.6 In light of the above discussion

Jayarama Reddy Boopesh Reddy, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Bengaluru

ITA 710/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Bharat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHODHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED

Jayarama Reddy Boopesh Reddy, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Bengaluru

ITA 709/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Bharat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHODHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED