Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

Home › All Judgements › G. E. India Technology vs. CIT (Supreme Court)

G. E. India Technology vs. CIT (Supreme Court)

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 22, 2009 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

Click here to download the judgement (g_e_india_samsung_195_TDS.pdf)

Ad-interim stay of recovery granted by Supreme Court

In a SLP filed against the judgement of the Karnataka High Court in CIT vs. Samsung Electronics, the Supreme Court, by an ad-interim order dated 18.12.2009 directed issue of notice to the Respondents and also directed “Stay of recovery till further orders”.

Note: In CIT vs. Samsung Electronics it was held that the moment there is a payment to a non-resident, there is an obligation on the payer to deduct tax at source u/s 195 (1). The only way to escape the liability is for the payer to make an application to the AO u/s 195 (2) for non-deduction or for deduction at a lower rate. If the payer does not make an application and obtain an order u/s 195 (2), it is not open to him to argue that the payment has not resulted in taxable income in the hands of the non-resident recipient and that, therefore, there is no failure on the part of the payer to deduct tax u/s 195 (1).

Related Posts:

  • PCIT vs. Barclays Technology Centre India Private Ltd (Bombay High Court) However, before closing, we would like to record the fact that we find that the Revenue is regularly filing appeals from the orders of the Tribunal in respect of Transfer Pricing particularly with regard to exclusion and inclusion of certain companies as comparables to determine ALP of tested parties. These…
  • Goodyear India Ltd vs. CIT (Supreme Court) In our opinion, such communication(s) cannot be treated as admission of non-disclosure as such. What is significant to note is that in the present case, the disclosure is attributed to Goodyear Tyre & Rubber Co., USA, filed by it in the proceedings in USA; and not by the assessee as…
  • CIT vs. Carpet India (Supreme Court) we are not in the agreement with the decisions in Baby Marine Exports 290 ITR 323 & Sushil Kumar Gupta 210 TM 251 (SC) and as Explanation (baa) of Section 80HHC specifically reduces deduction of 90% of the amount referable to Section 28 (iiia) to (iiie) of the IT Act,…
  • CIT vs. Container Corporation of India Ltd (Supreme Court) Though both the Notification and communication are not binding on CBDT to decide whether ICDs can be termed as Inland Ports within the meaning of Section 80-IA of the IT Act, the appellant herein is unable to put forward any reasonable explanation as to why these notifications and communication should…
  • PCIT vs. Nokia India Pvt. Ltd (Supreme Court) The objections raised by the respondent (assessee) to the notice contending inter alia that since the impugned notice was based on "change of the opinion" and hence bad in law was upheld by the ITAT resulting in allowing the respondent's appeal and further by dismissing the Revenue's appeal by the…
  • PCIT vs. LG Electronics India Pvt Ltd (Supreme Court) Having heard Shri Vikramjit Banerjee, learned ASG appearing on behalf of the appellant, and giving credence to the fact that he has argued before us that the administrative Circular will not operate as a fetter on the Commissioner since it is a quasi judicial authority, we only need to clarify…

Related Judgements

  1. Mangat Ram vs. State (Supreme Court) 

    The Supreme Court deprectaes the practice of the High Court in disposing of matters without recording reasons. Explains that while the Supreme Court itself, being the final court, may pass orders without reasons, the High Courts and lower courts are … Mangat Ram vs. State (Supreme Court)…
  2. Synco Industries vs. ITO (Supreme Court) 

    If the assessee has suffered a loss in one unit, the same has to be set-off against the profits of the undertaking eligible for deduction u/s 80IA etc and if the resultant figure is a loss, no deduction under Chapter VI-A is allowable;
    Read more ›
  3. Foster’s Australia vs. CIT (Supreme Court) 

    Where the assessee had filed a SLP in the Supreme Court to challenge the ruling of the AAR without first filing a writ petition in the High Court, it was directed to withdraw the SLP and file a writ petition. Read more ›
  4. Nectar Beverages vs. DCIT (Supreme Court) 

    Prior to 1.4.1988, Ss. 41(1) and 41(2) both existed on the statute book. S. 41(1) deals with recoupment of trading liability while s. 41(2) deems balancing charge to be business income. Both operate in different spheres. If the argument of the department that balancing charge should be read as…
  5. CIT vs. Exide Industries (Supreme Court) 

    The judgement of the Calcutta High Court in Exide Industries Ltd vs. UOI 292 ITR 470 holding that s. 43B (f) is arbitrary, unconscionable and de hors the apex Court decision in Bharat Earth Movers vs. CIT 245 ITR 428 has been stayed by the Supreme Court and it…