TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether payments made to the foreign consortium members were subject to deduction of tax at source under section 195 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, or whether no deduction was required on those remittances. (ii) Whether payments made to public sector bodies and other executing agencies for winter games infrastructure and related works attracted deduction of tax at source under section 194C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and whether the assessee could avoid being treated as an assessee in default under section 201 where the recipients had accounted for the amounts. (iii) Whether the payment routed through State Trading Corporation for import and supply-related work attracted deduction of tax at source under section 194C and required factual verification of the invoice and material value.
Issue (i): Whether payments made to the foreign consortium members were subject to deduction of tax at source under section 195 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, or whether no deduction was required on those remittances.
Analysis: The contract with the foreign members was examined as a separate arrangement within a consortium in which the foreign parties were responsible for supplying equipment and warranty, while the Indian member undertook installation and civil work. The payments were made directly to the foreign suppliers, and the materials were shipped from outside India. On the facts found, no income accrued or arose in India in the hands of those foreign parties, and the conditions for invoking section 195 were not satisfied. The reasoning also proceeded on the basis that the arrangement did not justify treating the payments as chargeable income in India merely because the consortium functioned for convenience.
Conclusion: The payments to Snow Star SPA and Pomagalski SA France were held not liable to deduction of tax at source under section 195, and the disallowance on that count was deleted.
Issue (ii): Whether payments made to public sector bodies and other executing agencies for winter games infrastructure and related works attracted deduction of tax at source under section 194C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and whether the assessee could avoid being treated as an assessee in default under section 201 where the recipients had accounted for the amounts.
Analysis: The payments were made by the assessee for execution of work connected with construction and development of sports facilities and infrastructure, which fell within the scope of section 194C. The assessee was the person responsible for making the payments, and the fact that the amounts were routed as grants or that the recipients had further engaged sub-contractors did not remove the withholding obligation. At the same time, the matter was governed by the principle reflected in the proviso to section 201, under which the assessee may not be treated as in default if the recipients have duly accounted for the receipts and the consequential tax position is otherwise in accordance with law. The Tribunal therefore required the assessee to furnish the prescribed details and evidence before the Assessing Officer for verification.
Conclusion: The liability under section 194C was upheld, but the issue under section 201 and interest under section 201(1A) was sent back for verification in the light of the recipient compliance evidence.
Issue (iii): Whether the payment routed through State Trading Corporation for import and supply-related work attracted deduction of tax at source under section 194C and required factual verification of the invoice and material value.
Analysis: The State Trading Corporation was found to have facilitated import and related work for the assessee, including expenditure connected with installation, commissioning, handling and insurance. On the available record, the nature of the transaction was not fully established because the invoices were not before the Tribunal, and it was necessary to determine whether the invoice value separated material from service components. The matter therefore required factual examination at the assessment stage, with the withholding obligation to be tested on the basis of the bill particulars.
Conclusion: The issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification of the bills and consequential determination under section 194C.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only in part. The tax deduction demand relating to the foreign consortium remittances was deleted, while the remaining TDS issues were upheld in principle or sent back for fresh verification, resulting in a partly allowed disposal for statistical purposes.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
