| COURT: | ITAT Bangalore |
| CORAM: | Abraham P. George (AM), Vijay Pal Rao (JM) |
| SECTION(S): | 200A, 206AA |
| GENRE: | Domestic Tax, International Tax |
| CATCH WORDS: | TDS deduction |
| COUNSEL: | B. K. Manjunatha |
| DATE: | February 12, 2016 (Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: | February 28, 2016 (Date of publication) |
| AY: | 2011-12 |
| FILE: | Click here to download the file in pdf format |
| CITATION: | |
| S. 206AA: S. 90(2) overrides s. 206AA and so the assessee is required to deduct TDS as per the DTAA and not as per s. 206AA. The issue is debatable and so cannot be rectified by the AO u/s 200A | |
(i) 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. Section 206AA of the Act does not override the provisions of section 90(2) of the Act and in the payments made to non-residents, the assessee correctly applied the rate of tax prescribed under the DTAAs and not as per section 206AA of the Act because the provisions of the DTAAs was more beneficial.
(ii) The explanation below sub-section-1 of Section 200A of the IT Act, which clarifies that in respect of deduction of tax at source where such rate is not in accordance with provisions of this Act can be considered as an incorrect claim apparent from the statement. However, in the case in hand, it is not a simple case of deduction of tax at source by applying the rate only as per the provisions of Act, when the benefit of DTAA is available to the recipient of the amount in question. Therefore, the question of applying the rate of 20% as provided u/s 206AA of the IT Act is an issue which requires a long drawn reasoning and finding. Hence, we are of the considered opinion, that applying the rate of 20% without considering the provisions of DTAA and consequent adjustment while framing the intimation u/s 200A is beyond the scope of the said provision. Thus, the AO has travelled beyond the jurisdiction of making the adjustment as per the provisions of Section 200A of the IT Act, 1961.
(Dy.DIT Vs M/s Serum Institute of India Ltd, DCIT Vs. Infosys BPO Ltd. in ITA No.1143 and 8 & 9/bang/2014, Bosch Vs ITO followed)
Leave a Reply