Search Results For: ITAT Panaji


DCIT vs. Sesa Resources Ltd (ITAT Panaji)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE: ,
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 27, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 5, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 195/ 40(a)(ia): Commission paid to non-resident agents for services rendered outside India is not liable for TDS u/s 195. The retrospective amendment to s. 195 to provide that s. 195 applies whether or not the non-resident person has a residence or place of business or business connection in India makes no difference to the legal position

As the commission agent did not have any business connection in India as they had no permanent establishment in India and in fact neither any income arose or accrued to non-resident agent in India. DCIT v/s Ardeshi B Cursetjee & Sons Ltd. 115 TTJ 916 which held that the commission paid to non-resident agent outside India for the services rendered were not chargeable to tax in India. In these circumstances, there was no occasion to deduct tax at source in respect of the payment made to the non-resident agent

Sesa Resources v. ACIT (ITAT Panaji)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE: ,
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 20, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 21, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 195/ 40(a)(ia): In view of retrospective amendment to s. 195 to provide that s. 195 applies whether or not the non-resident person has a residence or place of business or business connection in India, commission to non-resident agents for services rendered outside India is liable for TDS u/s 195 and has to suffer disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia)

In respect of the issue as to whether the Assessee was liable to deduct TDS u/s 195 and whether the disallowance was liable to be made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act, it is noticed that the provisions of s. 195 has been amended by the introduction of the Explanation-II to the said section by the Finance Act, 2012, with retrospective effect from 1.4.1962, whereby it is clarified that ‘the obligation to comply with sub-section (1) and to make deduction thereunder applies and shall be deemed to have applied and extends and shall be deemed to have always extended to all persons, resident or non-resident, whether or not the non-resident person has (i) a residence or place of business or business connection in India…’ In view of the introduction of Explanation II to s. 195… the disallowance… would have to be restored

ACIT vs. Ajit Ramakant Phatarpekar (ITAT Panaji)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 16, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 23, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 40(a)(ia): If an amount becomes taxable due to a retrospective amendment, payments prior to the amendment cannot be disallowed for want of TDS

This is a fact that the retrospective amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2010 was not in existence at the time when the Assessee had made the payments. The Assessee cannot be penalized for performing an impossible task of deducting TDS in accordance with the law which was brought into the statute book much after the point of time when the tax deduction obligation was to be discharged

ACIT vs. Indian Furniture Products Limited (ITAT Panaji)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 7, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 12, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 40(a)(i): Usance charges paid by the Assessee on import of raw material from foreign countries attracts tax in India u/s 5(2)(b) r.w.s. 9(1)(v)(b)

From reading the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation as reported in 314 ITR 309 (SC) and the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court (reported in 261 ITR 113) it is apparent that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has not reversed the decision in the case of CIT vs. Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation, 261 ITR 113 (supra) on the finding that the usance charges are not interest u/s 2(28A) except where an undertaking is engaged in the business of ship breaking in view of explanation (2) to Sec. 10(15)(iv)(c) inserted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2003 with retrospective effect

Top