2019 (11) TMI 1515

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....spondent : Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT ORDER PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: All the three appeals of the assessee are directed against the common order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -15, Chennai, dated 29.09.2017, for assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. Since common issue arises for consideration in these appeals, we heard these appeals together and dispos....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ss the technology was made available to the assessee, it cannot be said that technology was provided by the parent company. Therefore, according to the Ld. representative, the assessee is not liable to deduct tax under Section 195 of the Act. Moreover, for assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18, by order dated 25.10.2016 and 09.03.2018, the Assessing Officer himself issued certificates to the assess....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Ld. representative has also placed his reliance on the order of this Bench of the Tribunal in DCIT v. Ford India Ltd. (2017) 78 taxmann.com 5 and also decision of the Special Bench of this Tribunal at Mumbai in Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT (2009) 30 SOT 374. The Ld. representative has also placed reliance on the judgment of Delhi High Court in DIT v. Guy Carpenter & Co. Ltd. (2012) 346 ITR ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....essee is a subsidiary company of Singapore company. In fact, entire decisions were taken at Singapore. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that unless the technology was made available to the assessee-company, the assessee is not liable to deduct tax in view of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Singapore. Similar view was taken by the Mumbai Bench of this ....