2017 (11) TMI 1845 - AT - Income Tax

Failure to Deduct Tax Leads to Disallowance: ITAT Emphasizes Compliance with Tax Withholding Obligations

GE India Industrial P. Ltd, (as successor in interest to GE India Technology Centre P. Ltd, Now amalgamated) Versus Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Range-11, Bengaluru

The ITAT upheld the disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Act for failure to deduct tax at source on payments to non-resident vendors for software ... TDS u/s 195 - tax withheld on payments for purchase of software - Double Tax Avoidance Agreement - HELD THAT:- We find that the coordinate bench in the matter of Intertec Software Pvt. Ltd., vs ITO [2017 (10) TMI 1472 - ITAT BANGALORE] wherein the author of this order was the co-author, after relying upon the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the matter of CIT (Intl.Taxn) v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd . [2009 (9) TMI 526 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] and distinguishing the later judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in WIPRO Ltd. vs. DCIT [2015 (10) TMI 826 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] has held as In view of the provisions of Section 90 of the Act, agreements with foreign countries DTAA would override the provisions of the Act. In view of the said finding, it is clear that there is obligation on the part of the respondents to deduct tax at source under Section 195 of the Act. Further, it is stated that obligation to deduct TDS u/s 195 arises only when there is a sum chargeable under the Act and not all payments are subject to TDS. - Decided against the assessee. Issues:Disallowance u/s.40(a)(i) of the Act for failure to deduct tax at source on payments made to non-resident vendors for the purchase of software.Analysis:Issue 1: Disallowance u/s.40(a)(i) of the ActThe assessee, a captive service provider, engaged in providing engineering analysis and software development services, filed a return of income for the assessment year 2010-11. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed a sum under section 40(a)(i) of the Act for failure to deduct tax at source on payments made to non-resident vendors for the purchase of software. The CIT (A) confirmed the disallowance, citing a previous judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court that held tax withholding on such payments was necessary. The assessee contended that subsequent judgments favored their position, emphasizing a judgment in WIPRO Ltd. vs. DCIT where it was held that no disallowance could be made under section 40(a)(i) for software imported as royalty. The ITAT, after considering the arguments and previous judgments, upheld the order of the lower authorities, following the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in CIT vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. The ITAT declined to interfere in the order of the CIT (A) and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.This case highlights the importance of tax withholding on payments made to non-resident vendors for the purchase of software, as determined under section 40(a)(i) of the Act. The ITAT's decision to uphold the disallowance emphasizes the significance of compliance with tax deduction requirements, as established by relevant judicial precedents. The ITAT's reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in CIT vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. underscores the authoritative interpretation of tax laws in such matters, guiding the resolution of disputes related to tax deductions on specific types of payments. The detailed analysis of previous judgments and their applicability to the present case showcases the meticulous consideration given to legal precedents in reaching a decision that aligns with established legal principles and interpretations.This judgment serves as a comprehensive illustration of the legal intricacies involved in disputes concerning tax deductions under the Income Tax Act, particularly in the context of payments to non-resident vendors for software purchases. By examining and distinguishing relevant judgments, the ITAT ensures a thorough and reasoned approach to resolving disputes, ultimately upholding the importance of adhering to tax withholding obligations as prescribed by law and judicial interpretations. The dismissal of the appeal underscores the adherence to legal principles and precedents in determining the tax treatment of specific transactions, providing clarity and guidance for future cases involving similar issues.