Case Law Details
Case Name : CIT (Intl. Taxation) Vs Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (Karnataka High Court)
Related Assessment Year :
Courts :
All High Courts Karnataka High Court
Become a Premium member to Download.
If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored
RELEVANT PARAGRAPH
The above appeals are all by the revenue directed against the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, where under the Tribunal had allowed the appeals filed by different resident – assessees in respect of different assessment years by holding that the resident – assessees were not liable for deduction of any part of the payments made by them to non-resident suppliers as price (for consideration) for the
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Sponsored
Kindly Refer to
Privacy Policy &
Complete Terms of Use and Disclaimer.
While studying the case of Karnataka HHigh Court in Samsung for section 195 I have another query.
In a partnership firm of three equal partners having office premises and business equipments on which depreciation is claimed.
One of the partner is NRI and now non citizen also wants to retire from the firm.
In the capital account of the firm he (the NRI retiring partner)has a credit balance of 10 lacs.
The firm revalued the assets and valuation of office premises and business equipment is 9.03 crores as gainst the book value of 0.03 crore.
The difference of Rs. 9 crore between the book value and revaluation is credited to each partner’s capital account equally.
Now the retiring partner is entitled to have 1/3 share in Assets which is 3.01 crore and capital of Rs. 10 lacs. Total entitlment is Rs. 3.11.crore.
Now on retirement he wants this payment without deduction of tax by applying provisions of section 195.
His claim is that the balance in capital account of firm is not income chargeable to tax, therefore no TDS be made. He has given a certificate from CA to this effect
This money he wants to take abroad.
What is the correct and legal position considering section 45(4) and section 195.
Read more: https://www.taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/applicability-of-tds-on-payment-made-for-purchase-of-software-from-non-residents.html/comment-page-1#comment-32692#ixzz0kJSxlxyO
While studying the case of Karnataka HHigh Court in Samsung for section 195 I have another query.
In a partnership firm of three equal partners having office premises and business equipments on which depreciation is claimed.
One of the partner is NRI and now non citizen also wants to retire from the firm.
In the capital account of the firm he (the NRI retiring partner)has a credit balance of 10 lacs.
The firm revalued the assets and valuation of office premises and business equipment is 9.03 crores as gainst the book value of 0.03 crore.
The difference of Rs. 9 crore between the book value and revaluation is credited to each partner’s capital account equally.
Now the retiring partner is entitled to have 1/3 share in Assets which is 3.01 crore and capital of Rs. 10 lacs. Total entitlment is Rs. 3.11.crore.
Now on retirement he wants this payment without deduction of tax by applying provisions of section 195.
His claim is that the balance in capital account of firm is not income chargeable to tax, therefore no TDS be made. He has given a certificate from CA to this effect
This money he wants to take abroad.
What is the correct and legal position considering section 45(4) and section 195.