| COURT: |
|
| CORAM: |
|
| SECTION(S): |
|
| GENRE: |
|
| CATCH WORDS: |
|
| COUNSEL: |
|
| DATE: |
(Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: |
October 12, 2010 (Date of publication) |
| AY: |
|
| FILE: |
|
| CITATION: |
|
|
|
Under Art 26(3) of India-USA DTAA payments to Non-Residents are equated with payments to Residents & so s. 40(a)(i) disallowance not valid
The assessee made payments to Master Card and VISA Card, international credit card companies, based in USA, for services in respect of credit cards issued by the assessee. As the assessee had not deducted tax at source on payments made, the AO disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 40(a)(i). The CIT (A) upheld the disallowance on the ground that VISA & Mastercard had a permanent establishment in India through the networking computers and leased telephone lines and the sums paid to them were taxable in India. In appeal before the Tribunal, the assessee raised the alternative argument that even if the income of Master Card and VISA was taxable in India, no tax was required to be deducted in view of Article 26(3) of the India-USA DTAA which protects the non residents against any discrimination vis-à-vis residents. HELD allowing the appeal:
Article 26(3) of the India-USA DTAA protects the interest of non residents vis-a-vis residents. Article 26(3) provides that payment made to a non-resident will be deductible under the same conditions as if the payment were made to a resident. The exceptions provided in Article 26(3) are not applicable on facts. As per s. 40(a)(i), no disallowance can be made in respect of payments to residents on the ground of non-deduction of tax at source. Therefore, in view of Article 26(3), no disallowance can be made even in case of payments to non-residents even if the amount is found taxable in India in their hands. Herbal Life International 101 ITD 450 (Del) followed.
Related Posts:
- DZ Bank AG – India Representative Office vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) It is an undisputed fact that the entire related interest income has been brought to tax in the hands of the foreign enterprise, even though on gross basis under article 11. In case any income is brought to tax on account of ALP adjustment, and bearing in mind the fact…
- Bank Of India vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) In the present case, our entire focus was on whether these foreign tax credits could be allowed even when such tax credits lead to a situation in which taxes paid abroad could be refunded in India, but that must not be construed to mean that, as a corollary to our…
- Bank of India vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) The effect of Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in Kulandagan Chettiar (267 ITR 654) that income taxable in the source jurisdiction under the treaty provisions cannot be included in total income of the assessee is clearly overruled by the legislative developments. It is specifically legislated that the mere fact of taxability…
- DCIT vs. Ozone India Ltd (ITAT Ahmedabad) To summarise, in our view, the issue of shares at ‘face value’ by the amalgamated company (assessee) to the shareholders of amalgamating company in pursuance of scheme of amalgamation legally recognized in the Court of Law neither falls with scope & ambit of clause (viib) to S. 56(2), when tested…
- DCIT vs. JSW Limited (ITAT Mumbai) In the light of the above discussions, we are of the considered view that rather than taking a pedantic view of the rule requiring pronouncement of orders within 90 days, disregarding the important fact that the entire country was in lockdown, we should compute the period of 90 days by…
- Renu T Tharani vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) The assessee before us is closely involved with the transaction and it is inconceivable that the assessee will have no direct knowledge of the owners of the underlying company and settlors of the trust which has her, as she herself puts it, as beneficiary of such a huge amount. This…
Leave a Reply