Income Tax : When a resident buys unlisted shares from a non-resident, TDS must be deducted on gross consideration under Section 195, subject t...
Income Tax : Payments for sports sponsorship that grant global trademark usage can be split as royalty. Courts upheld withholding where tradema...
Income Tax : When only one spouse pays for a jointly owned property, TDS liability rests with the paying spouse. Builders’ insistence on both...
Income Tax : Buyers must deduct TDS under Section 195 on amounts paid to NRI sellers, deposit by the 7th of the following month, and not rely o...
Income Tax : Section 194-IA mandates 1% TDS on immovable property purchases from resident sellers if consideration or stamp duty value is ₹50...
Income Tax : Direct & Indirect Taxes : Monthly Updates Date & Time – 3rd December 2022 (Time:11 a.m to 12:30 p.m) Tax Guru is Organiz...
Income Tax : Clarification on certain procedural and technical issues regarding the Income Disclosure Scheme, 2016 (IDS) under section 119 of t...
Income Tax : Finance Act, 2012 extended the obligation to withhold taxes to non- residents irrespective of whether the non-resident has -...
Income Tax : Government has recently modified the Foreign Exchange Management (Current Account Transactions) Rules, 2000 and the Liberalized Re...
Income Tax : The Supreme Court judgement on Vodafone tax case seems to have opened a Pandora's box with exporters too expressing reservation on...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that absence of a clear charge in the penalty notice makes the proceedings invalid. It ruled that failure to spe...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that commission paid to foreign agents for services rendered outside India is not taxable in India. Consequently...
Income Tax : Bombay High Court held that application for NIL withholding tax certificate rightly rejected since matter of taxability of fees fo...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that consultancy payments for architectural services were not FTS since no technical knowledge was made availabl...
Income Tax : The Tribunal rejected the Revenue’s argument that taxpayers must seek AO determination under Section 195(2) in all cases. It hel...
Income Tax : CBDT notifies the Income-tax (Seventh Amendment) Rules, 2025, updating Forms 26Q and 27Q to include Section 194T on payments to fi...
Income Tax : it has been decided that no such request for Form 15E for certificates under section 195(2) & 195(7) for a particular Financial Ye...
Income Tax : CBDT vide notification No. 18/2021-Income Tax, Dated: March 16, 2021 inserted new rule 29BA. Application for grant of certificate ...
Income Tax : Clarification on orders dated 31.03.2020 and 03.04.2020 issued under section 119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) by CBDT vid...
Income Tax : In case of pending applications for lower/nil rate of TDS/TCS for F.Y. 2019-20, the Assessing Officers have been directed to dispo...
ACIT Vs Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)- Accreditation does not allow the accredited product to use, or have a right to use, a trademark, nor any information concerning industrial, commercial or scientific experience – or, for that purpose, use or right to use of anything falling in any other category of clause (a).
DCIT, Chennai Vs M/s Aban Offshore Ltd (ITAT Chennai) – Whether disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) is warranted for deduction of tax @ 1% on subcontract where the sub-contract is entered into to fulfill the conditions of the main contract and the same is not independent to the main contract ?
Recently in the case of ACIT v. Indair Carriers Pvt. Ltd. [I.T.A. No. 1605 (Del) of 2010], the Delhi Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, held that payments made to non-resident freight forwarders are not chargeable to tax under section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and hence the payer is not liable to withhold tax under section 195 of the Act. Consequently, there is no question of disallowance of the amounts paid to non-resident freight forwarders under section 40(a)(i) of the Act.
M/s Texas Instruments Incorporated v DDIT (International Taxation) The assessee has not approached the deductor to deduct the tax at lower rate. It is the deductor who approached the department claiming that the payments to be made to the assessee are not chargeable to tax in India and to determine the chargeability. Where all payments made to non-resident are subject to deduction of tax at source u/s 195, the interest u/s 234B is not leviable on the non-resident.
CIT vs. Swaraj Mazda Ltd (P&H High Court)- Learned counsel for the revenue has not been able to dispute the fact that there is no challenge to the finding that certificate issued to the assessee under Section 195(2) was never cancelled and in absence thereof, the assessee could not be treated as assessee in default. In view of the said unchallenged finding, the order of the Tribunal has to be sustained. Once it is so, we are of the view that the questions referred need not be gone into.
Explore Chennai Water Board Tax Case with TDS on loss-making payee, interest levy, and proportionality issues under the Income Tax Act.
GE India Technology Cen. (F) Ltd. v. CIT (Supreme Court) -It was held that the moment a remittance is made to a non resident; obligation to deduct tax at source under section 195 of the Act does not arise. It arises only when such remittance is a sum chargeable to tax under the Income Tax Act under sections 4, 5 and 9 of the Act.
Reimbursable expenditure and the fee payable for technical services under DTAA between India and USA- the reimbursable expenditure received by the assessee cannot form part of the total income. – since the development of infrastructure falls within the industrial policy of Government of India specific approval may not be required for claiming exemption u/s. 10(6A) of the Act. – what was reimbursed is the service tax paid by the assessee to the Government account. therefore, such an amount cannot form part of technical fee. In other words, it cannot be treated as trading receipt. In view of the above, in our opinion, the reimbursement of service tax cannot form part of the total income of the assessee. – fee received by the assessee towards technical services / consultancy would fall under Article 12 and not under Article 7. Therefore, tax has to be levied only at 15% and not at 20%. – there is no liability to pay the advance tax wherever the tax was deducted at source. Therefore, interest was not chargeable u/s. 234B of the Act.
the assessee-company had made various payments to its holding company M/s. Alstom Holdings, France but no deductions of tax at source were made. – there is justification for the assessee’s conviction at the time of payment that no tax was deductible at source. It was neither a composite payment.
Commission paid to agents for services rendered outside India is not chargeable to tax in India and there is no obligation to deduct tax u/s 195. As Agent was not a performer, his income was not covered under Article 18 of the DTAA but was covered by Article 7 and as the services were rendered outside India and there was no PE, the same was not assessable to tax in India.
