{"id":19864,"date":"2021-07-02T09:32:08","date_gmt":"2021-07-02T04:02:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/pcit-v-summit-india-water-treatment-and-services-ltd-2020-271-taxman-69-189-dtr-160-315-ctr-682-guj-hc\/"},"modified":"2021-07-02T09:32:08","modified_gmt":"2021-07-02T04:02:08","slug":"pcit-v-summit-india-water-treatment-and-services-ltd-2020-271-taxman-69-189-dtr-160-315-ctr-682-guj-hc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/pcit-v-summit-india-water-treatment-and-services-ltd-2020-271-taxman-69-189-dtr-160-315-ctr-682-guj-hc\/","title":{"rendered":"PCIT v. Summit India Water Treatment and Services Ltd. (2020) 271 Taxman 69 \/ 189 DTR 160 \/ 315 CTR 682 (Guj.)(HC)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Assessment\u00a0 was completed u\/s 143 (3) of the Act. PCIT revised the order on the ground that\u00a0\u00a0 the assessee has not deducted tax at source in respect export freight to shipping agent of non-resident ship owner or charter without deduction of tax at source\u00a0 hence entire amount to be disallowed . On appeal the Appellate Tribunal relying on the Circular No 723 dt 19-9 1995 held that where payment was made to shipping agent of non-resident ship owner or charter, agent would step into shoe of principal, i.e., shipping company and accordingly provisions of section 172, which provide for shipping business in respect of non-residents, would be applicable and provisions of section 194C or section 195, which provide for deduction of tax at source, shall not be applicable. Accordingly the revision order was quashed . On appeal by the revenue High Court affirmed the order of the Tribunal . \u00a0(AY. 2013 -14 )<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 263 : Commissioner &#8211; Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue &#8211; Shipping business &#8211; Non-residents \u2013Failure to  deduct tax at source \u2013 Revision is held to be not valid \u2013 Order of Appellate Tribunal is affirmed  [ S. 40(a)(ia) , 143 (3) , 172  194C , 195 ] <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","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":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-19864","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-5ao","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19864","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=19864"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19864\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":19865,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19864\/revisions\/19865"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=19864"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=19864"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=19864"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}