Assessee-company had made interest payments to China Development Bank, which as per it was a bank wholly owned by Government of China. The assessee did not deduct tax at source on such interest in view of article 11(3) of India-China DTAA. Assessing Officer raised the demand under section 201(1)/201(1A) upon assessee on failure to deduct TDS. He rejected assessee’s application for stay of demand on ground that as per CBDT OM No. F No. 404/72/92/-ITCC, dated 29-2-2016, he could not grant stay until 20 per cent of disputed demand was paid. Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the application of assessee. On writ the court held that since assessee had not suffered any operational losses and plea of hardship as raised was not made out, order of Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the application and upholding direction of Assessing Officer directing assessee to deposit 20 per cent of total demand was up held. (AY. 2016-17)
Tata Teleservices Ltd. v. CIT (2022) 216 DTR 286 / 145 taxmann.com 142 (Delhi)(HC)
S. 226 : Collection and recovery-Modes of recovery-Stay-Deduction at source-Interest-Bank deposits-Failure to deduct or pay-Application for stay of demand was dismissed-Directed to deposit 20 per cent of total demand-DTAA-India-China. [S. 201 (1), Art. 11(3), Art. 226]