TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Section 195 TDS obligations apply to payments for non-resident telecom operators despite DTAA claims</h1> <h3>Deputy Director of Income Tax & Anr. Versus M/s. Vodafone Idea Ltd.</h3> The SC dismissed the special leave petition following its earlier judgment in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited. The case involved ... TDS u/s 195 - Royalty or FTS or business profits - payment made to NTOs is towards interconnectivity charges - Assessee is an ILD license holder and responsible for providing connectivity to calls originating/terminating outside India - as decided by HC [2023 (7) TMI 1164 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] an assessee is entitled to take the benefit under a DTAA between two countries. Hence, the ITAT’s view that DTAA cannot be considered in proceedings under Section 201 of the Act is tenable. Assessee is not obliged to do the impossible. As facilities are situated outside India and the agreement is with a Belgium entity which does not have any presence in India. Therefore, the Tax authorities in India shall have no jurisdiction to bring to tax the income arising from extra-territorial source. HELD THAT:- During the course of submissions, we realised that this petition is covered by the judgment of this Court in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited [2021 (3) TMI 138 - SUPREME COURT] which has been followed in other cases also. When this fact was brought to the notice of petitioners, it was pointed out that in similar matters, this Court has issued notice. The submission of that there is a Review Petition pending before this Court and notice issued was in order. That is no reason for entertaining any subsequent matter having regard to the Explanation of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Respondent has brought to our notice order passed in GE India Technology Private Limited Etc. [2024 (4) TMI 1168 - SC ORDER] whereby a three-Judge Bench of this Court had dismissed the said Review Petitions both on the ground of delay as well as on merits. Special Leave Petition is dismissed on merits following the aforesaid judgment/order. The Supreme Court condoned a delay of 222 days in filing a Special Leave Petition. The court dismissed the petition on merits, citing a previous judgment in a similar case. The decision was based on a three-Judge Bench's order dismissing Review Petitions for delay and merits.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
