← 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

Anand and Anand, New Delhi vs. JCIT, Range- 37, New Delhi

ITA 2134/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 40

translation, processing and typing of relevant documents. 5. Ld. Sr. Counsel has submitted that while making such payments, the Appellant remitted the amount without withholding taxes under section 195 of the Act as the income of the legal practitioners/ law firms located abroad did not accrue or arise in India

Te Connectivity Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT Circle, 7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1887/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: S/Shri Sriram Sheshadri & Vinay Jain, CAsFor Respondent: Smt. Suganthamala T M, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 144CSection 40Section 92C

reimbursement of employee related expenses and share based expenses on cost to cost basis. Since there is no element of income in these payments, withholding tax provisions would not be applicable. The ld. AO held that assessee has failed to give any documentary evidence that there is no element ... that if there is no element of income in the payment made which is chargeable tot tax u/s. 45 & 9 of the Act, no withholding tax requirement is hit. In the present case, it is shown before us that it is a reimbursement at cost to cost. Thus, we find

Tfdac Ireland II Limited, Ireland vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax International Tax Circle 4(1)(2) Mumbai, Mumbai

ITA 1198/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025AY 2022-23
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

double taxation treaty network of State R, including its tax treaties with the five States in which TCO owns subsidiaries, which all provide low withholding tax rates. In this example, merely reviewing the effects of the treaties on future payments by the subsidiaries to the regional company would not enable ... into in this regard. On 18th April 2011 Petitioner made an application under Section 197 of the Income Tax Act to obtain a NIL withholding tax certificate on the basis that the gain would not be chargeable to tax in India. On 20th May 2011 an order under Section

Dae(Sy22) Leasing (Ireland)41, Designated Activity Company, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation Circle 2(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1157/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

double taxation treaty network of State R, including its tax treaties with the five States in which TCO owns subsidiaries, which all provide low withholding tax rates. In this example, merely reviewing the effects of the treaties on future payments by the subsidiaries to the regional company would not enable ... into in this regard. On 18th April 2011 Petitioner made an application under Section 197 of the Income Tax Act to obtain a NIL withholding tax certificate on the basis that the gain would not be chargeable to tax in India. On 20th May 2011 an order under Section

Dae (Sabs) Leasing Ireland 43 Designated Activity Company, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Int Tax.Circle 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed and

ITA 1156/MUM/2025[2022-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025AY 2022-22
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

double taxation treaty network of State R, including its tax treaties with the five States in which TCO owns subsidiaries, which all provide low withholding tax rates. In this example, merely reviewing the effects of the treaties on future payments by the subsidiaries to the regional company would not enable ... into in this regard. On 18th April 2011 Petitioner made an application under Section 197 of the Income Tax Act to obtain a NIL withholding tax certificate on the basis that the gain would not be chargeable to tax in India. On 20th May 2011 an order under Section

Dae (Sabs) 10296 Ireland Designated Activity Company, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Int Taxation), Cirlce 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed and

ITA 1155/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025AY 2022-23
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

double taxation treaty network of State R, including its tax treaties with the five States in which TCO owns subsidiaries, which all provide low withholding tax rates. In this example, merely reviewing the effects of the treaties on future payments by the subsidiaries to the regional company would not enable ... into in this regard. On 18th April 2011 Petitioner made an application under Section 197 of the Income Tax Act to obtain a NIL withholding tax certificate on the basis that the gain would not be chargeable to tax in India. On 20th May 2011 an order under Section

Sky High Xliii Leasing Company Limited, Ireland vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Int Tax Circle 4 (2) (1) Mumbai, Mumbai

ITA 1122/MUM/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025AY 2022-2023
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

double taxation treaty network of State R, including its tax treaties with the five States in which TCO owns subsidiaries, which all provide low withholding tax rates. In this example, merely reviewing the effects of the treaties on future payments by the subsidiaries to the regional company would not enable ... into in this regard. On 18th April 2011 Petitioner made an application under Section 197 of the Income Tax Act to obtain a NIL withholding tax certificate on the basis that the gain would not be chargeable to tax in India. On 20th May 2011 an order under Section

Ortus Aircraft Lease 5( Dublin) Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(2)(2) International Taxation, Mumbai

ITA 1108/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

double taxation treaty network of State R, including its tax treaties with the five States in which TCO owns subsidiaries, which all provide low withholding tax rates. In this example, merely reviewing the effects of the treaties on future payments by the subsidiaries to the regional company would not enable ... into in this regard. On 18th April 2011 Petitioner made an application under Section 197 of the Income Tax Act to obtain a NIL withholding tax certificate on the basis that the gain would not be chargeable to tax in India. On 20th May 2011 an order under Section

Sunflower Aircraft Leasing Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 4(2)(2) International Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1107/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025AY 2022-23
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 9(1)(vi)

finding on the PPT, the DR submitted that the structure of the arrangement nonetheless called for strict scrutiny. Given the high withholding tax differential between India and Ireland, and the strategic choice of leasing into India from Ireland, the DR argued that such transactions warranted a narrow construction of treaty

Ortus Aircraft Lease 6(Dublin) Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(2)(2) International Taxation, Mumbai

ITA 1106/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

double taxation treaty network of State R, including its tax treaties with the five States in which TCO owns subsidiaries, which all provide low withholding tax rates. In this example, merely reviewing the effects of the treaties on future payments by the subsidiaries to the regional company would not enable ... into in this regard. On 18th April 2011 Petitioner made an application under Section 197 of the Income Tax Act to obtain a NIL withholding tax certificate on the basis that the gain would not be chargeable to tax in India. On 20th May 2011 an order under Section

Continental Foundation Joint Venture, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2678/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2011-12 Continental Foundation Joint Assistant Commissioner Of Venture, Income Tax, Circle-38(1), Continental House-28, Vs. Room No.2202, E-2, Nehru Place, New Delhi-19 Civic Centre, Minto Road, Pan: Aaaac0084D New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. M. P. Rastogi, Advocate Sh. Shivam Malik, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 06.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04.08.2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am The Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2011-12 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.03.2016 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’]. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred & Was Not Justified In Disallowing A Sum Of Rs 2.31,80,000/- On Account Of Reimbursement Of Legal & Professional Fee Paid To Members Of The Appellant, By Wrongly Invoking The Provisions Of Section 40Ba) Of The Act, Conveniently Ignoring Earlier Orders U/S 195(2) To The Effect That Impugned Amounts Were Not Covered U/S 40(Ba).

Section 195(2)Section 244ASection 40Section 40b

order of the ITO (TDS) passed under section 195 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’), wherein he had not only approved withholding tax @ 10% but had also held that the services rendered by the FCC in relation to which payments of legal & professional charges made by the assessee

Ernst & Young U.S. LLP, Noida vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle International Tax 1(2)(2), New Delhi

In the result, bot the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 1254/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Naveen Chandraita No.1243/Del/2025 (Assessment Year 2022-23) Ernst & Young U.S. Llp Acit, Circle, C/O Authorized Representative, International Tax- Ernst & Young Llp, Vs. 1(2)(2), New Delhi. 5Th Floor, Tower-2, Plot No.2B, Sector-126, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar (U.P.)-201304. Pan-Aadfe0355M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri S. Ganesh, Sr. Adv. & Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Department By Shri Nikhil Kumar Govila, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 17/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2025 O R D E R Per Bench: The Present Appeals Of The Assessee Are Arising Out From The Order Of Ld. Assessing Officer Dated 18Th December, 2024 & 12Th December, 2024 & Relates To Assessment Year 2018-19 & Assessment Year 2022-23 Respectively.

Section 139(4)

supra], has held as under: "30. The DRP has affirmed the decision of the Ld. AO by holding that the assessee has deducted withholding tax on 21 substantial payments and yet argued that the tax is not deductible u/s 195 of the act and provision of section ... invoked in the case of said payment. 31. The DRP has affirmed the decision of the AO by holding that the assessee has deducted withholding tax on substantial payments and yet argued that the tax is not deductible u/s 195 of the act and provision of section

Ernst & Young U.S. LLP, Noida vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle International Tax 1(2)(2), New Delhi

In the result, bot the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 1243/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Naveen Chandraita No.1243/Del/2025 (Assessment Year 2022-23) Ernst & Young U.S. Llp Acit, Circle, C/O Authorized Representative, International Tax- Ernst & Young Llp, Vs. 1(2)(2), New Delhi. 5Th Floor, Tower-2, Plot No.2B, Sector-126, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar (U.P.)-201304. Pan-Aadfe0355M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri S. Ganesh, Sr. Adv. & Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Department By Shri Nikhil Kumar Govila, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 17/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2025 O R D E R Per Bench: The Present Appeals Of The Assessee Are Arising Out From The Order Of Ld. Assessing Officer Dated 18Th December, 2024 & 12Th December, 2024 & Relates To Assessment Year 2018-19 & Assessment Year 2022-23 Respectively.

Section 139(4)

supra], has held as under: "30. The DRP has affirmed the decision of the Ld. AO by holding that the assessee has deducted withholding tax on 21 substantial payments and yet argued that the tax is not deductible u/s 195 of the act and provision of section ... invoked in the case of said payment. 31. The DRP has affirmed the decision of the AO by holding that the assessee has deducted withholding tax on substantial payments and yet argued that the tax is not deductible u/s 195 of the act and provision of section

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Cirlce - 1(1), Bengaluru vs. Applied Materials India Private Limited, Bengaluru

ITA 1296/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Dr. Divya K.J., CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri Suryanarayan, AR
Section 133ASection 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

SECONDER is not reimbursement in nature, but it is the income of SECONDER and while paying the amounts the Assessee has the obligation to withhold taxes under section 195. 13.2 The mere claim of the Assessee that it phrases the payment made to AE as "reimbursement" cannot be determinative. Neither ... incurred by Danfoss Singapore and it cannot be said that no income is embedded into such payment the payments have to be made after withholding tax ender section 195 of the Act" 16. Now coming to the issue of reimbursement once again reference is made to the decision

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle-1(1), Bengaluru vs. Applied Materials India Private Limited, Bengaluru

ITA 1295/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Respondent by
Section 133ASection 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

SECONDER is not reimbursement in nature, but it is the income of SECONDER and while paying the amounts the Assessee has the obligation to withhold taxes under section 195. 13.2 The mere claim of the Assessee that it phrases the payment made to AE as "reimbursement" cannot be determinative. Neither ... incurred by Danfoss Singapore and it cannot be said that no income is embedded into such payment the payments have to be made after withholding tax ender section 195 of the Act" कर अधिकारी (अंतः TAX OFFICER 16. Now coming to the issue of reimbursement once again reference is made

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle - 1(1), Bengaluru vs. Applied Materials India Private Limited, Bengaluru

ITA 1294/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Dr. Divya K.J., CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri Suryanarayan, AR
Section 133ASection 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

SECONDER is not reimbursement in nature, but it is the income of SECONDER and while paying the amounts the Assessee has the obligation to withhold taxes under section 195. 13.2 The mere claim of the Assessee that it phrases the payment made to AE as "reimbursement" cannot be determinative. Neither ... incurred by Danfoss Singapore and it cannot be said that no income is embedded into such payment the payments have to be made after withholding tax ender section 195 of the Act" 16. Now coming to the issue of reimbursement once again reference is made to the decision

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Hsbc Bank Plc, London

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1538/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(3)Section 192

under the supervision and control of HDPI. The salary of such employee was borne, incurred and paid by HDPI after deducting and depositing appropriate withholding tax to the Government treasury as per Section 192 of the Act. However, for administrative convenience, the social security benefits of such employees in home

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1(1), Pune vs. M/S. IAC International Automotive India Pvt.Ltd, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 749/PUN/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Darpan KirpalaniFor Respondent: Shri Madhukar Anand
Section 143(2)Section 92Section 92C

shares 28,660,990 Other Method 7. Recovery of expenses 1,354,357 Other Method 8. Recovery of expenses – 5,301,196 Other Method Withholding Tax paid on Employee stock option („ESOP‟) perquisite 9 Reimbursement of expenses 35,016 Other Method for testing material 3 ITA No.749/PUN/2022

Nanda Kumar Parthasarathy, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-15(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 853/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. Gautham S. Mukundan
Section 139(1)Section 91

salaries which the assessee received Rs.49,32,060/- as salary from a Australian company (M/s.Total Clarify Group PTY Ltd., Sydney) incorporated in Australia. The withholding tax of Rs.5,02,109/- made by the foreign company was duly claimed as relief u/s.91 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

Vanangamudi Vairamani Pandiyan, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2895/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.P. Solomon, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 250

u/s.148 of the Act. It was submitted that assessee had received dividend from Ford, USA of USD 12,218.80 (Rs.7,95,199/-) for which withholding tax of 25% of USD 3,054.95 was deducted. The assessee in the original return of income filed on 17.07.2018 has disclosed the dividend income