TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 89
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by respondent no. 1 [AO] under Section 195 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act], whereby the petitioner's application for issuance of a certificate under Section 195 (3) of the Act was rejected. However, the petitioner was permitted to file an application under Section 197 of the Act, which, it did. 2. The petitioner applied for certificate from Income Tax Department for 'Nil' withholding tax from the payments made to the petitioner during the financial year [FY] 2024-25 and the certificate dated 17.05.2024 [impugned certificate] was issued for withholding tax at a lower rate of 0.10 per cent. Accordingly, the petitioner impugns the certificate dated 17.05.2024 as well. It claims that its income from operating in aircrafts is not cha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e petitioner had also furnished an Indemnity Bond declaring that there is no income which is not covered under Article 8 of the DTAA. However, the petitioner's application was rejected on the ground that the petitioner had not brought material on record to show that it qualified for a deduction under Section 195 (3) of the Act read with Rule 29B (1) and (2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 [the Rules]. The said order mentions that no financial statement for the previous year or projected financial statement was submitted. Further, no details had been submitted by the petitioner. 8. Paragraph 4 of the impugned order sets out the reasoning for rejecting the petitioner's application. The same is set out below: "4. The application of the assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is assertion was not controverted by the Revenue. In respect of the FY 2019-20, certificate under Section 197 for withholding tax at nil rate was denied and the AO had issued a certificate permitting withholding tax at a reduced rate of 0.5 percent. However, the petitioner had successfully assailed the same by filing a petition before this court being W.P.(C) 9163/2019 captioned Lufthansa Cargo AG v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Another. This court found that the AO had not considered the relevant material and accordingly, allowed the writ petition by setting aside the said order and remanding the matter to the AO for considering afresh. 11. Pursuant to the said order, the AO had examined the petitioner's application afresh and had ....