TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 815
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder dated 23.06.2025 (passed on 21.08.2025) passed by Circle INT TAX 1(3)(1) (hereinafter referred to as 'the competent authority') and consequential certificate dated 21.08.2025 issued under Section 197 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1961') whereby the tax withholding certificate (hereinafter referred to as 'the certificate') at the rate of 15% has been issued, as against petitioner's request for issuance of 'NIL' rate certificate. 2. As per the pleadings of the petitioner, it is a company incorporated in the United Kingdom and is a tax resident thereof for Assessment Year (AY) 2026-27, having furnished a valid Tax Residency Certificate. The petitioner is engaged in providing subscription-based info....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....025. Consequently, a tax withholding certificate dated 21.08.2025 at the rate of 15% tax came to be issued. 5. Mr. Ajay Vohra, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's services are not taxable in India if the provisions of the Act of 1961 and the India-UK Treaty are taken into account and in spite of the fact that the petitioner had relied upon the judgment passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal "I" Bench, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') on 21.12.2020 for AYs 1998-99 and 1999-2000, the competent authority has surprisingly relied upon the assessment order for AY 1999-2000 and rejected its request of certificate at 'NIL' rate. He contended that the same is an example of arbitrary exe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....val counsel. 11. There is no denial of the fact that in the case of M/S Thomson Reuters Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT Circle-8(3)(1) (erstwhile group entity), the Tribunal vide its order dated 21.12.2020 had dilated upon all relevant facts, including the agreement in question and the nature of transactions/services which the petitioner provides to its Indian customers through its counterparts in India namely RIPL and RITSPL. No appeal has perhaps been filed against such order, as the petitioner has not received any notice of appeal (if filed). 12. We are shocked to see that regardless of the factum of the order having been passed by the Tribunal on 21.12.2020 and such factual and legal position having been brought to the notice of the competent ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ately be refunded, in case the same are not exigible to tax, but if such argument of the Revenue is to be accepted, then, the whole purpose of the provision under Section 197 of the Act of 1961 would be frustrated. 17. Considering that the application was filed on 20.06.2025; the impugned order came to be passed on 21.08.2025 and that by the time the matter has ripened for hearing today (10.02.2026), more than 80% of the period is already over, and during this period the petitioner-company has transacted in India and its tax has been deducted. 18. Such being the position, we not only set aside the impugned order dated 23.06.2025 (passed on 21.08.2025), certificate dated 21.08.2025 and direct the competent authority to issue a certific....