{"id":33112,"date":"2023-03-01T16:36:41","date_gmt":"2023-03-01T11:06:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/tata-teleservices-ltd-v-cit-2022-216-dtr-286-145-taxmann-com-142-delhihc\/"},"modified":"2023-03-01T16:36:41","modified_gmt":"2023-03-01T11:06:41","slug":"tata-teleservices-ltd-v-cit-2022-216-dtr-286-145-taxmann-com-142-delhihc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/tata-teleservices-ltd-v-cit-2022-216-dtr-286-145-taxmann-com-142-delhihc\/","title":{"rendered":"Tata Teleservices Ltd. v. CIT (2022) 216 DTR 286 \/ 145 taxmann.com 142 (Delhi)(HC)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>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 \u00a0did not deduct tax at source on such interest in view of article 11(3) of India-China DTAA. \u00a0Assessing Officer \u00a0raised the demand\u00a0 under section 201(1)\/201(1A) \u00a0upon assessee on failure to deduct TDS. He \u00a0rejected assessee\u2019s 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\u00a0 the \u00a0application of assessee. On writ the\u00a0 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 \u00a0application and upholding direction of Assessing Officer directing assessee to deposit 20 per cent of total demand\u00a0 was up held. \u00a0(AY. 2016-17)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>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]<\/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-33112","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-8C4","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33112","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=33112"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33112\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":33113,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33112\/revisions\/33113"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=33112"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=33112"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=33112"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}