This article summarizes a recent ruling of the Karnataka High Court (HC) [ITA No. 2808 of 2005] in the case of Samsung Electronics and others (Taxpayers). The HC held that any payment resulting in any income in the hands of a non-resident would be subject to withholding tax under the Indian Tax Law (ITL). Unless an order is obtained from the Tax Authority for withholding tax at a lower rate or for not withholding tax, a taxpayer would need to withhold tax on the income at the applicable withholding tax rates, even if the income may not be taxable in the hands of the non-resident.
The assessee entered into a contract with Raytheon – Ebasco, a foreign company, and two of its’ foreign subsidiaries, for commissioning of a power plant. The assessee made payments to Raytheon for rendering technical services, providing ‘start-up’ services and taking ‘overall responsibility’ for the Project. The two foreign subsidiaries of Raytheon carried on onshore services
Having regard to the agreement entered into inter se between the hospital and the TPA for payment of money to the hospital, it cannot be said that the TPA, who is the authority or the person to pay the amount to the hospital, is not required to deduct the tax at source and section 194J is not attracted.
Refund on appeal, etc. – Where, as a result of any order passed in appeal or other proceeding under this Act, refund of any amount becomes due to the assessee, the Assessing Officer shall, except as otherwise provided in this Act, refund the amount to the assessee, without his having to make any claim in that behalf:
Keeping in view that the Income-tax Act, 1961 was amended by the Finance Act, 2005 permitting an individual to deposit to the maximum of Rs. 1,00,000/- in any of the specified schemes, the concerned authorities should take steps to amend clause 3 of the PPF Scheme in terms of section 80C of the Income-tax Act.
The grievance of the revenue is that proviso appended to section 43B of the Act permitting allowing of deduction of PF, ESI etc., subsequent to the close of the accounting period but before the return is filed, should not have been followed but disallowance must be upheld. It has not been disputed before us that the proviso has been inserted by the Finance Act, 1987 effective from 1.4.1988. In view of this, the appeals preferred by the revenue have been dismissed.
No doubt, section 192 of the Income-tax Act requires the employer to deduct the income-tax from the salary and the salary is defined under section 17 of the Income-tax Act, which includes wages, any annuity or pension, any gratuity, any fees, commissions, perquisites or profits in lieu of or in addition to any salary or wages, any advance of salary and other payments
Tribunal has also placed reliance on yet another judgment of the Supreme Court. ported in (1972) ITR 83 page 27 (Hindustan Steel Limited Vs State of Orissa), where it dealt with the provisions contained in Orissal Sales Tax Act. While considering the general principles, the Apex Court has held that penalty can be levied on failure of the assessee
HC held that Revenue is to be definitely restrained in terms of Section 205 of the Act from enforcing any demand on the assessee-petitioner insofar as the demand with reference to the amount of tax which had been deducted by the tenant of the assessee in the present case, and assuming that the tenant had not remitted the amount to the Central Government. The only course open to the Revenue is to recover the amount from the very person who has deducted and not from the petitioner.
If we look at the scheme for the provision of deduction of tax at source, it becomes obvious that such person is acting on behalf of the Revenue, i.e.,as an agent of the Revenue. In fact, the person is enabled statutorily to make deduction and remit the amount to the Central Government, though in the instant case, the person who has deducted the amount may be the tenant or lessee of the petitioner and there is such inter se relationship as between the two,
