| COURT: | Delhi High Court |
| CORAM: | S. Muralidhar J, Vibhu Bakhru J |
| SECTION(S): | 195, 40(a)(i), 40(a)(ia), Article 26 |
| GENRE: | Domestic Tax, International Tax |
| CATCH WORDS: | non-discrimination, TDS deduction, TDS disallowance |
| COUNSEL: | Ajay Vohra, M S Syali |
| DATE: | May 13, 2016 (Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: | May 16, 2016 (Date of publication) |
| AY: | 2001-02 |
| FILE: | Click here to view full post with file download link |
| CITATION: | |
| S. 40(a)(i): The law in s. 40(a)(i) that failure to deduct TDS on payment to a non-resident will result in a disallowance violates the non-discrimination clause in Article 26 of the India-USA DTAA because a similar disallowance is not made on payments to residents (pre s. 40(a)(ia)) | |
The argument of the Revenue overlooks the fact that the condition under which deductibility is disallowed in respect of payments to non-residents, is plainly different from that when made to a resident. Under Section 40 (a) (i), as it then stood, the allowability of the deduction of the payment to a non-resident mandatorily required deduction of TDS at the time of payment. On the other hand, payments to residents were neither subject to the condition of deduction of TDS nor, naturally, to the further consequence of disallowance of the payment as deduction. The expression “under the same conditions” in Article 26 (3) of the DTAA clarifies the nature of the receipt and conditions of its deductibility. It is relatable not merely to the compliance requirement of deduction of TDS. The lack of parity in the allowing of the payment as deduction is what brings about the discrimination
Recent Comments