Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.24 seconds)Section 5 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Article 12 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 195 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Danisco (India) Private Limited vs Union Of India & Anr. on 13 August, 2014
14. So, following the order passed by the coordinate Bench of
the Tribunal in cases of DDIT (IT-II), Pune vs. Serum Institute
of India Ltd., DCIT vs. M/s. Infosys BPO Ltd. and the
judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Danisco India
10 ITA Nos.2260, 2261 & 2262/Del./2017
Pvt. Ltd. vs. UOI, we are of the considered view that ld. CIT (A)
has erred in holding that in this case, provisions contained u/s
206AA overrides beneficial provisions of DTAA between India
and Neitherland. Consequently, assessee has rightly deducted the
tax @ 10% as per provisions contained under DTAA as section
206AA cannot have overriding effect on DTAA, hence no demand
is payable by the assessee. Hence, question framed is decided in
favour of the assessee. So, additions made by the AO and
confirmed by the ld. CIT (A) to the tune of Rs.73,00,719.77,
Rs.80,82,662.74 & Rs.57,05,582.11 for second quarter, third
quarter and fourth quarter of FY 2012-13 respectively is ordered to
be deleted. Consequently, all the appeals filed by the assessee are
allowed.
Section 154 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Central Excise, Pune ... vs M/S Serum Institute Of India Ltd on 20 May, 2009
14. So, following the order passed by the coordinate Bench of
the Tribunal in cases of DDIT (IT-II), Pune vs. Serum Institute
of India Ltd., DCIT vs. M/s. Infosys BPO Ltd. and the
judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Danisco India
10 ITA Nos.2260, 2261 & 2262/Del./2017
Pvt. Ltd. vs. UOI, we are of the considered view that ld. CIT (A)
has erred in holding that in this case, provisions contained u/s
206AA overrides beneficial provisions of DTAA between India
and Neitherland. Consequently, assessee has rightly deducted the
tax @ 10% as per provisions contained under DTAA as section
206AA cannot have overriding effect on DTAA, hence no demand
is payable by the assessee. Hence, question framed is decided in
favour of the assessee. So, additions made by the AO and
confirmed by the ld. CIT (A) to the tune of Rs.73,00,719.77,
Rs.80,82,662.74 & Rs.57,05,582.11 for second quarter, third
quarter and fourth quarter of FY 2012-13 respectively is ordered to
be deleted. Consequently, all the appeals filed by the assessee are
allowed.
Ge India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd.,, ... vs Addl.C.I.T., Bangalore on 17 November, 2017
The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre
Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, (2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC) held that the provisions of
DTAAs along with the sections 4, 5, 9, 90 & 91 of the Act are relevant
while applying the provisions of tax deduction at source. Therefore, in
view of the aforesaid schematic interpretation of the Act, section
206AA of the Act cannot be understood to override the charging
sections 4 and 5 of the Act. Thus, where section 90(2) of the Act
provides that DTAAs override domestic law in cases where the
provisions of DTAAs are more beneficial to the assessee and the same
also overrides the charging sections 4 and 5 of the Act which, in turn,
override the DTAAs provisions especially section 206AA of the Act
which is the controversy before us. Therefore, in our view, where the
tax has been deducted on the strength of the beneficial provisions of
section DTAAs, the provisions of section 206AA of the Act cannot be
invoked by the Assessing Officer to insist on the tax deduction @ 20%,
having regard to the overriding nature of the provisions of section
90(2) of the Act. The CIT(A), in our view, correctly inferred that
section 206AA of the Act does not override the provisions of section
90(2) of the Act and that in the impugned cases of payments made to
non-residents, assessee correctly applied the rate of tax prescribed
under the DTAAs and not as per section 206AA of the Act because ITA
Nos.1601 to 1604/PN/2014 the provisions of the DTAAs was more
beneficial. Thus, we hereby affirm the ultimate conclusion of the
CIT(A) in deleting the tax demand relatable to difference between 20%
and the actual tax rate on which tax was deducted by the assessee in
terms of the relevant DTAAs. As a consequence, Revenue fails in its
appeals."