Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.52 seconds)

Google India Private Limited, ... vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 11 May, 2018

3. The Ld.AR presented the case on the above lines. She invited our attention to the decision of Google India (P)Ltd. Vs. Joint Director of Income-tax (International Taxation) Range-1,Bengaluru, reported in (2018) 93 taxmann.com 193 (Bangalore- Trib.) / (2018) 194 TTJ 385 (Bangalore-Trib) dated 11.05.2018, wherein after referring the Tribunal decisions in the cases of Right Florist P.Ltd., dated 12.04.2013 (2013) 32 taxmann.com 99(kolatta-Trib) (2013) 25 ITR(T) 639 (Kollatta-Trib) (2013) 143 ITD 445(Kolkatta-Trib) and Pinstorm Technologies P.Ltd, Yahoo India (P) Ltd., etc, it is held in para 116 that "In all these cases, the assessee was either an advertiser or act on behalf of some other advertiser and has purchased space from the owner of search engine to display its advertisements online. Therefore, the payment made by the assessee to the owner of the search engine was considered to be business receipt/business profit in the hands of the owner of search engine, who is non-resident and in the absence of permanent establishment (PE) in India, the business profits/business receipts received by them were not chargeable to tax in India". The Ld.AR 4 ITANo.2674/Chny/2016 submitted that this ratio applies to the assessee's case, as it acted on behalf of its client, has purchased space from the owner of search engine, who is a non-resident and it is not having a permanent establishment in India also. Therefore, the business profits/receipts, received by them were not chargeable to tax in India and hence there is no case for the deduction of TDS. Further, she relied on the decision of ITAT., Chennai in the case of ACIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Chennai Vs.Carat LaneTrading P.Ltd., reported in (2018) 89 taxmann.com 434(Chennai Trib), the head note of which is extracted as under:-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 141 - Cited by 387 - Full Document
1