2018 (2) TMI 2133

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... petitioner had made payment of royalty of Rs. 2,00,39,165/to a foreign based company Multibase S.A. France by name. The company did not have PAN. The petitioner therefore deducted tax at source while making the payment at higher rate of 20%. The company thus deducted a sum of Rs. 40,26,438/by way of TDS. 4. The petitioner later on realized that under clause13 of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and France, the royalty paid by the petitioner to the parent company would invite TDS liability only at the rate of 10% and not 20% as deducted by the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner had made excess deduction of Rs. 20,03,912/under the said head. The petitioner thereupon approached the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax by writi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and belief. The petitioner has already applied to the departmental authorities for refund. However, the refund is not being granted on the ground of limitation. The petitioner therefore urged the CBDT to exercise powers under section 119 of the Act. 15.02.18 6. We are informed that CBDT has not yet responded to such petition of the assessee. Sum total of above developments is that the petitioner's application for refund of excess TDS deposited is not being decided primarily on the ground that the same was filed after the period of limitation prescribed under the scheme. Primafacie, we do not see any ground to discard the petitioner's contention that there has been excess deposit of TDS as compared to what is prescribed under DTAA ....