Intel required to deduct tax under Section 195; not a defaulter under Section 201 but must pay interest.

The Tribunal determined that Intel was obligated to deduct tax at source under Section 195, as the transaction was taxable. However, because Intel Asia filed its return and paid the due taxes, Intel was not considered an assessee-in-default under Section 201. Despite this, Intel was liable for interest under Section 201(1A) until the date Intel Asia filed its tax return. The revenue's appeal was partially allowed, confirming the cancellation of the demand under Section 201 but enforcing the interest liability on Intel.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 195 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Requirement of Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) on payments made to non-residents.
3. Treatment of the payer as an assessee-in-default under Section 201(1).
4. Liability for interest under Section 201(1A).
5. Consideration of the deductee's tax payments and returns.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Section 195 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The primary issue was whether Section 195, which mandates tax deduction at source (TDS) on payments to non-residents, applied to payments made by M/s. Intel Technology India Private Ltd. ('Intel') to M/s. Intel Asia Electronics Inc. USA (India Branch Office) ("Intel Asia"). The Assessing Officer (AO) argued that Section 195 was applicable because the payment was towards the sale of depreciable assets, which is chargeable to tax as short-term capital gains under Section 50. The assessee contended that Section 195 did not apply since Intel Asia was a tax resident in India and had already paid taxes.

2. Requirement of TDS on Payments Made to Non-Residents:
The AO found that Intel failed to deduct tax at source when crediting Rs. 2,60,00,000 to Intel Asia's account, despite the sale proceeds being chargeable to tax. The AO cited the Supreme Court's decision in Transmission Corporation of AP Ltd. v. CIT, which held that tax must be deducted on gross sums, irrespective of whether the transaction resulted in profit or loss. The assessee argued that no TDS was required as the transaction resulted in a loss for Intel Asia and that Intel Asia had already deposited the tax.

3. Treatment of the Payer as an Assessee-in-Default under Section 201(1):
The AO treated Intel as an assessee-in-default under Section 201(1) for failing to deduct tax at source. The assessee relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P.) Ltd. v. CIT, which held that no recovery could be made from the deductor if the deductee had already paid the taxes. The CIT(A) accepted this argument, noting that Intel Asia had filed its return and paid due taxes, thus fulfilling the purpose of the Act.

4. Liability for Interest under Section 201(1A):
The AO imposed interest under Section 201(1A) for the belated payment of taxes. The CIT(A) held that since Intel Asia had filed its return and paid taxes, Intel could not be treated as an assessee-in-default, and thus, no interest was chargeable. However, the Tribunal held that while the demand under Section 201 was not enforceable, Intel was liable to pay interest under Section 201(1A) up to the date Intel Asia filed its return (1-11-2004).

5. Consideration of the Deductee's Tax Payments and Returns:
The CIT(A) and the Tribunal both considered the fact that Intel Asia had filed its return and paid the due taxes. The CIT(A) observed that Intel Asia had shown a short-term capital loss on the transaction and paid Rs. 3,21,700 on other income. The Tribunal noted that the deductee's return showed no tax payable on the transaction, ending Intel's default on the date the return was filed.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that Intel was required to deduct tax at source under Section 195, as the transaction was chargeable to tax. However, since Intel Asia had filed its return and paid the due taxes, Intel could not be treated as an assessee-in-default under Section 201. Nonetheless, Intel was liable to pay interest under Section 201(1A) up to the date Intel Asia filed its return. The appeal of the revenue was partly allowed, upholding the cancellation of the demand under Section 201 but imposing interest liability on Intel.

---