{"id":1263,"date":"2009-12-22T12:18:04","date_gmt":"2009-12-22T12:18:04","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=1263"},"modified":"2009-12-22T12:18:04","modified_gmt":"2009-12-22T12:18:04","slug":"g-e-india-technology-vs-cit-supreme-court-ad-interim-stay-of-recovery-granted-by-supreme-court-cit-vs-samsung-electronics-195-tds","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/g-e-india-technology-vs-cit-supreme-court-ad-interim-stay-of-recovery-granted-by-supreme-court-cit-vs-samsung-electronics-195-tds\/","title":{"rendered":"G. E. India Technology vs. CIT (Supreme Court)"},"content":{"rendered":"<table width=\"150\" border=\"0\" align=\"right\">\n<tr>\n<td><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?dl_id=131\" onclick=\"if (event.button==0) \r\n     setTimeout(function () { window.location = 'http:\/\/itatonline.org\/downloads.php?varname=dl_id=131&varname2=g_e_india_samsung_195_TDS.pdf'; }, 100)\" ><strong>Click here to download the judgement (g_e_india_samsung_195_TDS.pdf) <\/strong> <\/a><\/p><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<p><strong> Ad-interim stay of recovery granted by Supreme Court<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>In a SLP filed against the judgement of the Karnataka High Court in <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/index.php\/cit-vs-samsung-electronics-karnataka-high-court-s-195-201-liability-cannot-be-avoided-on-ground-of-non-taxability-of-recipient\/\">CIT vs. Samsung Electronics<\/a><\/strong>, the Supreme Court, by an ad-interim order dated 18.12.2009 directed issue of notice to the Respondents and also directed &#8220;<strong>Stay of recovery till further orders&#8221;<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<div class=\"journal2\">\nNote: In <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/index.php\/cit-vs-samsung-electronics-karnataka-high-court-s-195-201-liability-cannot-be-avoided-on-ground-of-non-taxability-of-recipient\/\">CIT vs. Samsung Electronics<\/a><\/strong> 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).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In a SLP filed against the judgement of the Karnataka High Court in <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/index.php\/cit-vs-samsung-electronics-karnataka-high-court-s-195-201-liability-cannot-be-avoided-on-ground-of-non-taxability-of-recipient\/\">CIT vs. Samsung Electronics<\/a><\/strong>, the Supreme Court, by an ad-interim order dated 18.12.2009 directed issue of notice to the Respondents and also directed &#8220;<strong>Stay of recovery till further orders&#8221;<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<div class=\"read-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/g-e-india-technology-vs-cit-supreme-court-ad-interim-stay-of-recovery-granted-by-supreme-court-cit-vs-samsung-electronics-195-tds\/\">Read more &#8250;<\/a><\/div>\n<p><!-- end of .read-more --><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4,7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1263","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-judgements","category-supreme-court"],"acf":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1263","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1263"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1263\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1263"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1263"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1263"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}