← 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

Protean E Gov Technologies Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 976/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 14ASection 40

year under consideration on transactions undertaken with the identified payees as per the provisions of the Act and in consonance with the lower withholding tax certificate, thereby warranting no addition under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3:3 The Appellant prays that considering the facts

Essar Communications Limited, Mauritius vs. ACIT, Circle-1 (2)(2), New Delhi

ITA 340/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Venkatraman, ASG
Section 250Section 253Section 6(3)

shares by the assessees, EPSL made an application before the Hon'ble Authority for Advance Rulings ('AAR) seeking a ruling on its withholding tax liability on the proposed payment of sale consideration to the assessee for the transfer of shares in VEL. Capital gains made on proposed sale of shares ... tax on the capital gains at taxable rate charged as per Indian law and have expressed the same to be attributed towards the withholding tax liable to be deducted at source, notwithstanding any provisions of DTAA. The AAR allowed the said application for withdrawal vide order dated 01.07.2011 dismissing

Essar Com Limited, Mauritius vs. ACIT, Circle 1(2)(2), New Delhi

ITA 339/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Venkatraman, ASG
Section 250Section 253Section 6(3)

shares by the assessees, EPSL made an application before the Hon'ble Authority for Advance Rulings (‘AAR) seeking a ruling on its withholding tax liability on the proposed payment of sale consideration to the assessee for the transfer of shares in VEL. Capital gains made on proposed sale of shares ... tax on the capital gains at taxable rate charged as per Indian law and have expressed the same to be attributed towards the withholding tax liable to be deducted at source, notwithstanding any provisions of DTAA. The AAR allowed the said application for withdrawal vide order dated 01.07.2011 dismissing

Fugro Survey (India) Private Limited, Navi Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by

ITA 6042/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Fugro Survey (India) Private Limited, Dcit, Circle -15(1)(1), D-222/30, Furgo House, Ttc Vs Room No. 451, Aayakar Bhawan, Industrial Area, Darave B.O., Nerul, M.K. Road, Navi Mumbai-400706 Mumbai-400020 [Pan No. Aaacf 5343 R] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 254(1)Section 92D

appreciating that due taxes at source were paid on the international transaction of R &D fees and management fees in the form of withholding taxes that were withheld and charged to tax at gross on the said payments under section 195 of the Act. 12. Ground No 12:The honourable

Kavita Manoj Damani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officerm Int Tax Ward 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2648/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2025AY 2020-21
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54Section 64(1)(iv)

under the TOLA which the AO and the ld CIT(A) have failed to consider. Further, in the interim, as the matter relating to withholding tax was pending before the tax authorities and certificate was finally issued on 24/02/2021, the assessee parked the funds in fixed deposits/with Altan Engineering

ACIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6079/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amitabh Shuklaआअसं.5692 और5693/दिल्ली/2019 (नि.व. 2007-08 और2008-09)

For Appellant: S/Shri Rohit Jain, Deepesh Jain, Advocates andFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT(DR)
Section 195Section 40

assessee on the 5 ITA Nos.5962 &6078/Del/2019(AY 2007-08) ITA Nos.5963& 6079/Del/2019 (AY 2008-09) strength of said TRC did not deduct withholding tax on the payment of interest to the bank. The Assessing Officer (AO) in assessment order dated 31/1/2017 passed u/s 254/143(3)/144C

ACIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6078/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amitabh Shuklaआअसं.5692 और5693/दिल्ली/2019 (नि.व. 2007-08 और2008-09)

For Appellant: S/Shri Rohit Jain, Deepesh Jain, Advocates andFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT(DR)
Section 195Section 40

assessee on the 5 ITA Nos.5962 &6078/Del/2019(AY 2007-08) ITA Nos.5963& 6079/Del/2019 (AY 2008-09) strength of said TRC did not deduct withholding tax on the payment of interest to the bank. The Assessing Officer (AO) in assessment order dated 31/1/2017 passed u/s 254/143(3)/144C

Bharti Airtel Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 4(2), New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5963/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amitabh Shuklaआअसं.5692 और5693/िद"ी /2019(िन.व. 2007-08 और2008-09)

For Appellant: S/Shri Rohit Jain, Deepesh Jain, Advocates and Shri Shivam Gupta, Chartered AccoFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT(DR)
Section 195Section 40

6078/Del/2019(AY 2007-08) ITA Nos. 5963& 6079/Del/2019 (AY 2008-09) strength of said TRC did not deduct withholding tax on the payment of interest to the bank. The Assessing Officer (AO) in assessment order dated 31/1/2017 passed u/s 254/143(3)/144C of the Act disallowed assessee’s claim

Bharti Airtel Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 4(2), New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5962/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amitabh Shuklaआअसं.5692 और5693/दिल्ली/2019 (नि.व. 2007-08 और2008-09)

For Appellant: S/Shri Rohit Jain, Deepesh Jain, Advocates andFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT(DR)
Section 195Section 40

issued by Swedish Tax Authority (at page 159-160 of the paper book), the assessee on the strength of said TRC did not deduct withholding tax on the payment of interest to the bank. The Assessing Officer (AO) in assessment order dated 31/1/2017 passed u/s 254/143(3)/144C

Vembu Kumar, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 734/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam
Section 139(1)Section 90

foreign company incorporated in the USA and the same was duly declared in the ITR under the head ‘income from other sources’. The withholding tax of Rs.1,82,73,872/- (USD 2,85.529.29) made by the foreign company was duly claimed as relief u/s.90 of the Income Tax

Lions Gate India LLP, Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Income Tax Department, Delhi, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 4970/MUM/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jun 2025

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Ms. Bhumika Majethiya, AR (virtually)For Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. DR
Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 92CSection 92C(3)

demand payable by the Appellant on account of excess refund granted to the Appellant 3. erred in short grant of withholding tax credit to the tune of Rs. 8,14,808 Time barred proceedings 4. erred in not appreciating that the time limit under Section

ITO (International Taxation) Gurgaon, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon vs. Bain and Company India Private Ltd., Dlf Cyber City Phase-II

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2869/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 195Section 201

markup. 3. The Assessing Officer passed an order u/s 201 of the Act holding that the assessee to be assessee in default for not withholding tax u/s 195 of the Act on the remittance made by the assessee to Bain US on the ground that the reimbursement of client related ... Tribunal in the case of Bain US for AY 2018-19, wherein the Tribunal held that the reimbursement of expenses are not subjected to withholding tax in the case of the assessee and in the case of the Bain US the receipts are held to be not in the nature

ITO (International Taxation) Gurgaon, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon vs. Bain and Company India Private Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2867/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 195Section 201

markup. 3. The Assessing Officer passed an order u/s 201 of the Act holding that the assessee to be assessee in default for not withholding tax u/s 195 of the Act on the remittance made by the assessee to Bain US on the ground that the reimbursement of client related ... Tribunal in the case of Bain US for AY 2018-19, wherein the Tribunal held that the reimbursement of expenses are not subjected to withholding tax in the case of the assessee and in the case of the Bain US the receipts are held to be not in the nature

Sigma Electric Manufacturing Corporation Private Limited, Pune vs. ITO Circle (8), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 820/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.820/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 40

ought to have considered the fact that the no withholding tax is required to be deducted on payment made to M/s UL LLC and CSA Group Testing & Certification INC and therefore no disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) is required to be made 2 Sigma Electric Manufacturing Corporation

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, (International Taxation)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. United Home Entertainment Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 1559/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 9(1)(vi)

Intelsat. 4. It was submitted that the assessee has filed an application u/s.195(2) of the Act, requesting to issue an order for NIL withholding tax certificate for payment of transponder service fees to Intelsat during the financial year 1st April, 2015 to 31st March ... Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and UK as well as per the Income Tax Act, 1961 and that the assessee is required to withhold tax at the rate of 10.51% (inclusive of surcharge and cess) on service fee payable to Intelsat Global Sales and Marketing Limited. It was held

ACIT, Delhi vs. M/S. Vodafone Essar Mobile Services Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for

ITA 983/DEL/2015[2006-07 (F.Y.- 2005-06)]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2025

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Respondent: Mr. Ketan Ved
Section 194Section 201Section 201(1)

erred in directing the A.O. to calculate the interest u/s 201(1A) from the due date of payment of withholding tax to the date of payment of taxes by the deductees, whereas as per the proviso to section 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, interest is chargeable from ... allowed in favour of the assessee directing the Ld.AO to compute the interest from the due date of payment of withholding tax (TDS) by the assessee up to the date of payment of the taxes by the payee/ recipient. The relevant findings of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 1266/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 144ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

this regard by the Id.AR. If a payment is treated as royalty under the Act, the same may not still be subject to withholding tax under section 195 of the Act, if the said payment is not treated as royalty under the applicable DTAA. Reliance was placed on Union

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 1264/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 144ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

this regard by the Id.AR. If a payment is treated as royalty under the Act, the same may not still be subject to withholding tax under section 195 of the Act, if the said payment is not treated as royalty under the applicable DTAA. Reliance was placed on Union

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 1263/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 144ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

this regard by the Id.AR. If a payment is treated as royalty under the Act, the same may not still be subject to withholding tax under section 195 of the Act, if the said payment is not treated as royalty under the applicable DTAA. Reliance was placed on Union

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 1262/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon'Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1193, 1194, 1205, 1206 & 1207/Chny/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Cognizant Technology Solutions Vs The Asst. Commissioner India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, No.5/535, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Central Circle 1(1), Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai. Chennai - 600 096. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Pan: Aaacd 3312M (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1262, 1263, 1264, 1265 & 1266/Chny/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs Cognizant Technology Income Tax, Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle 1(1), No.5/535, Okkiam Chennai. Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai - 600 096. Pan: Aaacd 3312M (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निधारिती की ओर से/Assessee By राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit & Ms. Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025 - 2 -

For Respondent: Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate
Section 10ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

this regard by the Id.AR. - If a payment is treated as royalty under the Act, the same may not still be subject to withholding tax under section 195 of the Act, if the said payment is not treated as royalty under the applicable DTAA. Reliance was placed on Union