DCIT, CHENNAI v. I.M. Gears Private Ltd., CHENNAI

ITA 134/CHNY/2014 | 2009-2010
Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2014 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 13421714 RSA 2014
Assessee PAN AAACI1606H
Bench Chennai
Appeal Number ITA 134/CHNY/2014
Duration Of Justice 6 month(s) 15 day(s)
Appellant DCIT, CHENNAI
Respondent I.M. Gears Private Ltd., CHENNAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 31-07-2014
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 31-07-2014
Date Of Final Hearing 17-07-2014
Next Hearing Date 17-07-2014
Assessment Year 2009-2010
Appeal Filed On 15-01-2014
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A B ENCH CHENNAI . ! # $ % & BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NOS.134 & 135/MDS/2014 & CROSS OBJECTION NOS. 27 & 28/MDS/2014 (IN ITA NOS.134 & 135/MDS/2014) ( / ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 & 2010-11) THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX COMPANY CIRCLE-II(3) 513 WANAPARTHY BLOCK 121 M.G.ROAD CHENNAI-600034. VS M/S. I.M.GEARS PVT.LTD. 193-B (NEW NO.507) VELACHERY ROAD EAST TAMBARAM CHENNAI-600 059. PAN: AAACI1606H ( /APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT/CROSS OBJECTOR) / APPELLANT BY : MR. N.MADHAVAN JCIT /RESPONDENT BY : MR. G.BASKAR ADVOCATE / DATE OF HEARING : 17 TH JULY 2014 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31 ST JULY 2014 / O R D E R PER BENCH: BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAIN ST THE COMMON ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II CHENNAI DATED 18.09.2013 FOR THE ASS ESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 & 2010-11. THE ONLY ISSUE IN BOTH TH ESE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE IS THAT COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN DELETING DISALLOWANCE MADE BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 40(A)(I) OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT 2 ITA NOS.134 & 135 /MDS/2014 & CO NOS.27 & 28/MDS/2014 OF NON-DEDUCTION OF TDS ON THE AGENCY COMMISSION PA ID BY THE ASSESSEE TO ITS NON-RESIDENT AGENTS. 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPLETING ASSESSMEN TS FOR BOTH THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS DISALLOWED AGENCY COMMISSION PAYMENTS MADE TO NON-RESIDENT AGENTS AS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DEDUCT TDS UNDER SECTION 195 OF TH E ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 40(A)(I) OF THE ACT DISALLOWED SUCH PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASS ESSEE TO NON-RESIDENT AGENTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS O F THE VIEW THAT SINCE THE BOARD HAS WITHDRAWN CIRCULAR NO .786 DATED 7.2.2000 WHICH DEALS WITH PAYMENT OF EXPORT COMMISSION TO NON-RESIDENT AGENTS THE PAYMENTS MAD E BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS SALES COMMISSION TO NON-RESIDE NT AGENTS IS LIABLE FOR TDS UNDER SECTION 195 OF THE A CT. ON APPEAL THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FO LLOWING THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S.FARIDA SHOES PVT.LTD. AND ALSO THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF G.E. INDIA TECHNOLOGY CENTRE (P) LTD. V. CIT (327 ITR 456) DELETED THE DISALLOWA NCE AGAINST WHICH REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE A SSESSEE 3 ITA NOS.134 & 135 /MDS/2014 & CO NOS.27 & 28/MDS/2014 ALSO FILED CROSS OBJECTIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN DELETING TH E DISALLOWANCE. 3. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN DISALLOWING SALES COMMISSION PAID TO OVERSEAS AGENTS FOR THE FAILURE TO DEDUCT TDS UNDER SECTION 195 OF THE ACT. 4. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTS THE ORDER OF T HE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 5. HEARD BOTH SIDES. PERUSED ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHOR ITIES AND THE DECISIONS RELIED ON. THE COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONSIDERED THIS ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO DECISIONS REND ERED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL ON SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES ALLOWED THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE DELETING DISALLOWANCES OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 4.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ASSES S EE'S SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS THE ORDERS OF THE HON ' HLE 4 ITA NOS.134 & 135 /MDS/2014 & CO NOS.27 & 28/MDS/2014 ITAT IN THE CASES OF M/S. FARIDA SHOES P LTD (ITA NO.159/MDS/2013 DATED 11 . 04.2013 FOR A.Y. 2008- 09) AND M/S. DELTA SHOES P LTD (ITA NO.909/MDS/2013 DATED 31 . 07.2013). THE FACTS INVOLVED IN THE CASES OF M/S. FARIDA SHOES P LTD AND M/S. DELTA SHOES P LTD ARE EXACTLY SIMILAR TO THOSE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT ASSESSEE. IN THE SAID CASES (I . E. FARIDA SHOES P LTD AND DELTA SHOES P LTD) THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE NON-RESIDENTS WITHOUT MAKING TDS WERE SIMILAR TO THOSE MADE BY THE PRESENT ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE SAID PAYMENTS U/S . 40(A)(I) FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TDS U/S.195 OF THE ACT . THE CIT(A) ALLOWED THE APPEALS OF THE S A ID COMPANIES. THE REVENUE PREFERRED AN APPEALS TO THE ITAT AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A). THE HON'BLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF CHENNAI VIDE ITS ORDERS MENTIONED ABOVE HAS HELD THAT THE SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE CONCERNED NON-RESIDENTS NEITHER AMOUNTS TO MANAGERIAL/ TECHNICAL SERVICES NOR THE PAYMENTS ARE ASSESSABLE TO TAX IN INDIA AND HENCE THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 195 OF THE ACT ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE SAID COMPANIES. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER OF THE ITAT (IN ITA NO.159/MDS/2013 DATED 11 . 04.2013 FOR AY. 2008- 09 IN THE CASE OF M/S. FARIDA SHOES P LTD) IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: '10.WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND CASE LAW CITED. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE CERTAIN PAYMENTS TO OVERSEAS AGENTS AS COMMISSION AND NO TDS DEDUCTED . ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSEES' BUSINESS IS SITUATED IN INDIA AND THE PAYMENTS WERE ALSO MADE FROM INDIA AND ACCORDING TO SECTION 195 THE ASSESSEE IS UNDER OBLIGATION TO DEDUCT TDS. THEREFORE BY INVOKING SECTION 40(A){I) HE HAS DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 5 62 13 826/ - . ON APPEAL THE CIT(APPEALS) DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE ON THE GROUND THAT THE COMMISSION WAS PAID TO NON - RESIDENT AGENT AND IT CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN ACCRUED IN INDIA AND SECTION 195 HAVE NO APPLICATION. THE ONLY ISSUE FOR OUR CONSIDERA T ION IS AS TO WHETH E R THE ASSESSEE IS UNDER OBLIGATION TO DEDUCT THE TDS UNDER SECTION 195 OR NOT THE CIT(APPEALS) BY CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE 5 ITA NOS.134 & 135 /MDS/2014 & CO NOS.27 & 28/MDS/2014 CASE PASSED A DETAILED ORDER BY OBSE R VING THAT SECTION 195 HAVE NO APPLICATION TO ASSESSEE'S CASE. IN THE CASE OF M/ S. PRAKASH IMPEX V . AC I T (SUPRA) THE COORDINATE BENCH OF !TAT CHENNAI HAS CONSIDERED THE VERY SAME ISSUE AND OBSERVED THAT THE C OMMISSION PAID TO NON - RESIDENT AGENT FOR THE SERVICES RENDERED OUTSIDE INDIA AND SUCH PAYMENTS ARE NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX INDIA AND THEREFORE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 195 ARE NOT APPLICABLE VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HON 'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF G E INDIA TECHNOLOGY CENTRE P . L TD. V. CIT (SUPRA). 11 . IN THE CASE OF C!T V . E ON TECHNOLOGY P) LTD . TH E HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS ALSO HELD T HA T THE COMMISSION PAYMENT TO ITS BRITISH PARENT/ HOLDI N G COMPANY ETUK COULD NOT SAID T O HAVE BEEN ACCRUED TO ETUK IN INDIA AND THE R EFORE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT LIABLE T O DEDUCT TAX AT SOURC E FROM PAYMENT OF COMMISSION TO ETUK . THE HEAD NOT E OF ODDER IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: . 'SECTION 9 OF TH E INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 IN CO M E - DE E MED TO ACCRU E OR ARISE IN INDIA ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 7- 08 - ASSESSEE-COMPANY WAS ENGAGED IN BU S INESS OF DEVEL O PM E NT AND EXPORT OF SOFTWARE - DURING RELEVANT ASSES S MENT YEAR IT HAD PAID COMMISSION TO ITS BRITISH PARENT / HOLDING C O MPANY ET U K ON SAL E S AND AMOUNTS REALIZED ON EXPORT CONTRACTS PROC U RED BY ETUK FOR A SSE S S EE - AS S ESSING OFFICE R HEL D THAT COMMISSION INCOME EARN E D BY ETUK HAD ACC R UED IN INDIA OR WAS DEEMED TO ACCRUE IN INDIA AND THEREFORE ASSESSEE WAS LIABL E TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOUR C E TH E R E F R OM AND AS THERE WAS FAILURE SAID EXPENDITURE SHOULD BE DISALLOWED UNDER SEC T I ON 40(A ) (IA) - WHETHER WHEN ETUK WA S NOT RENDERING AN Y SERVI C E O R PER F ORMING ANY ACTIVIT Y IN INDIA ITSELF COMMIS S ION IN C OME C OULD BE S AID T O HAVE A CC RU ED ARISEN TO OR RECEIVED BY ET U K IN INDIA M E R E L Y BECAUSE IT WAS R EC ORD E D IN BOOKS OF ASS E S SEE IN INDIA OR WA S PAID B Y AS S ESSEE SITUAT E D IN INDIA - HELD NO - WHETHER F O R APPLYIN G S ECT I ON 9 AS S ESSING OFFIC E R WA S R E QUIRED TO 6 ITA NOS.134 & 135 /MDS/2014 & CO NOS.27 & 28/MDS/2014 EXAMINE WHETHER SAID COMMISSI O N INCOME WAS ACCRUING OR ARISING DIRECTL Y O R I NDIRE C TLY FROM ANY BU SI N E SS CONNE C TION IN INDIA - HELD YE S - WHETHER SINC E FACTS FOUND BY A SS ESSING OFFICER DID NOT MAKE OUR A C AS E OF BUSINESS CONNE C TION AS S T I PULATED IN SE C TION 9(J)(I) C OMMISSION IN C OME COULD NOT BE SAID T O HAV E A CCRU E D TO ETUK IN INDIA AND THER E FORE AS S E SS E E WA S NOT L I ABL E T O DEDU C T TA X AT SOUR CE F R OM PAYM E NT OF COM M IS S ION T O ETUK - H E LD Y E S [IN FAVOUR OF ASS E SSEE) . 12 . THE HON ' BLE DELHI HIGH COUR T HAS CONSIDERED THE DECISION OF TH E HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S . TRANSMISSION CORPORATION OF ANDHRA PRADESH REPORTED IN 239 ITR 587 AND DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE . 13. IN THE CASE OF ARMA Y ESH GLOB A L V . ACI T (SUPRA) THE MUMBAI BENCH OF ITAT HAS OBSERVED THAT THE COMMISSION PAYMENT WAS MADE TO THE OVERSEAS AGENT FOR PROCUR I NG EXPORT ORDERS . THE AGENTS HAVE NOT B EE N PROVIDED ANY MANAGER I AL/TECHNICAL SERVICES . THE R ELATIONSHIP BE T WEEN THE ASSESSE E AND THE NON - RESIDENT (AGENT) W AS ONLY FOR RENDERING NON - T ECHNICAL SERV I CES . MOREO V ER THERE WAS NO PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SAID NON - RESIDENT IN I N D IA. THEREFORE THE COMMISSION PAID TO THE NON - RESIDENT AGENT D I D NOT ACCRUE OR ARISE IN INDIA AND THUS THERE WAS NO NEED FOR DEDUCTING TDS UNDER SECTION 195 OF THE ACT. 14 . IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSEE PAI D CERTAIN AMOUNTS TOO OVERSEAS AGENTS FOR PROCUREM E NT OF EXPORT ORDERS . THE AGENTS HAVE NOT PROVIDED ANY MANAGERIAL/TECHNICAL SERVICES. THE PAYMENTS RECEIVED B Y THE NON- RESIDENT INDIAN ARE NOT TAXABLE IN INDIA . TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION OF ENTIRE FACTS . AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND BY FOLLOWING AFORES A ID DECISIONS WE AR E OF THE OPINION THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED I N TH I S APPEAL IS COVERED IN FAUOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND SECTION 195 HAVE NO APPLI C ATION TO ASSESSEE ' S CASE. ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED . ' IN THE INSTANT CASE ALSO THE A SSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF EXPO R T OF ENGINEERING GOODS 7 ITA NOS.134 & 135 /MDS/2014 & CO NOS.27 & 28/MDS/2014 (IN THE CASES OF FARIDA SHOES P LTD AND DELTA SHOES P LTD THE PRODUC T S EXPORTED WERE SHOES). AS EXPLA I NED BY THE ASSESSEE IT IS AVAILING THE S ERV I CE S OF CE R TAIN NON- RESIDENT AGENTS FOR PROCURING EXPORT ORD E RS AND FOR MARKETING THE PRODUCTS FOR THE ASSESSEE FO R WHICH IT IS PAY I NG COMMISSION. PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSEE'S SUBMISSIONS SHOWS THAT THE SAID NON-RESIDENT AGENTS HAVE NO BUSINESS CONNECTION IN INDIA NOR THEY HAVE ANY PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENTS IN INDIA. THEY ARE PROCURI NG EXPORT ORDERS FOR THE ASSESSEE. THUS THE SAID NON- RESIDENT AGENTS ARE OPERATING OUTSIDE THE COUNT R Y AND ALL THE SERVICES ARE RENDERED ABROAD ONLY. IN OTHER WORDS THOUGH THE SAID NON-RESIDENTS ARE RENDERING SERVICES TO THE ASSESSEE (INDIAN COMPANY) THESE SERVICES ARE RENDERED TOTALLY OUTSIDE THE COUNTRY. IN SUCH A SITUATION THE PAYMENTS (COMMISSIONS) MADE TO SUCH AGENTS ARE NOT LIABLE TO BE TAXED IN INDIA . TDS IS REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED ON ALL PAYMENTS TO NON-RESIDENTS IF THE S A ID PAYMENTS ARE LIABLE FOR TAX IN INDIA. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE COMMISSION PAYMENTS TO THE NON-RESIDENT AGENTS ARE NOT TAXABLE IN INDIA AS THE SERVICES ARE RENDERED ABROAD AND THE AGENTS HAVE NO PE IN INDIA. THEREFORE THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT TO DED UCT TDS ON THESE PAYMENTS. FOR THIS PURP O SE ' RELIANCE IS ALSO PLACED ON THE DECISION OF APEX COURT IN THE CA SE OF GE INDIA TECHNOLOGY CEN. P LTD. V. CIT [2010] (327 ITR 456) (SC) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: SECTION 195 OF THE I N COME - TAX ACT 1961 - DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE - PAYMENT TO NON - RESIDENT - WHETHER THE MOMENT A REMITTANCE IS MADE TO A NON - RESIDENT OBLIGATION TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE DOES NOT ARISE; IT ARISES ONLY WHEN SUCH REMITTANCE IS A SUM CHARGEABLE UNDER ACT ' I . E . CHARGEABLE UNDER SECTIONS 4 5 AND 9 - HELD YES. WHETHER SECTION 195(2) IS NOT A MERE PROVISION TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO ITO(TDS) SO THAT DEPARTMENT CAN KEEP TRACK OF REMITTANCES BEING MADE TO NON- RESIDENTS OUTSIDE INDIA; RATHER I T GETS ATTRACTED TO CASES WHERE PAYMENT MADE IS A COMPOSITE PAYMENT IN WHICH CERTAIN PROPORTION OF PAYMENT HAS AN ELEMENT OF 'INCOME ' CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN INDIA AND PAYER SEEKS A DETERMINATION OF 8 ITA NOS.134 & 135 /MDS/2014 & CO NOS.27 & 28/MDS/2014 APPROPRIATE PROPORTION OF SUM CHARGEABLE - HELD YES. FURTHER UNDER SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES T HE HON'BLE ITAT OF CHENNAI IN THE CASES OF M/S . FARIDA SHOES P LTD (IN ITA NO. 159/MDS/ 2013 DATED 11 . 04.2013 FOR A.Y. 2008-09) AND ACIT VS . DELTA SHOES P LTD (IN ITA NO.909/MDS/2013 DATED 31 . 07.2013) HAS EXAMIN E D THE ISSUE OF COMMISSION PAYMENTS TO NON-RESIDENTS FOR PROCURING EXPORT ORDERS IN DETAIL AND CONCLUDED THA T THE COMMISSION PAYMENTS TO THE SAID NON-RESIDENT AGENTS ARE NOT ASSESSABLE TO TAX IN INDIA AND CONSEQUENTLY T H E RESIDENT PAYEE COMPANY (M/S . FARIDA SHOES P LTD Y DELTA SHOES P LTD) WAS NOT UNDER THE OBLIGATION OF DEDUCT ION TDS ON THE COMMISS I ON PAYMENTS U/S.195 OF THE ACT . IN THE PRESENT APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE (I . E . IN THE A . YS. 2009-10 AND 2010-11) ALSO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE EXACTLY IDENTICAL TO THOSE INVOLV ED IN THE CASE OF M/S. FARIDA SHOES P.LTD. FOR A.Y.2008-0 9 (EXCEPT THE TYPE OF PRODUCT EXPORTED.) THEREFORE S INCE THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEALS IS THE SA ME AND THE FACTS ARE EXACTLY IDENTICAL THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE !TAT (M/S. FARIDA SHOES P L T D IN ITA NO.159 /MDS/20 13 DATED 11 . 04.2013) IS EQU A LLY APPLICABLE TO T HE FACTS OF T HE PR E S ENT APPEALS OF THE INSTANT ASSESSEE FOR A . Y S . 2009-10 AND 2010-11 UNDER CONSID ER A TI O N. THEREFORE R ESPECTFULLY FOLLOWIN G THE DECISION OF !TAT I N THE CASE OF M/S . FAR I DA SHO ES P LTD (IN ITA NO.159/MDS/2013 DATED 11 . 04.2013) I HOLD THAT THE ABOVE TRANSA CTI O N S OF COMMISSION PAYMENTS TO THE NON-RESIDENTS FOR PROCUR I NG THE EXPORT ORDERS A R E N O T ASSESSABLE TO TAX IN INDIA AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS NOT . UND E R A NY OBLIGATION TO DEDUCT THE TDS ON THE ABOVE COMMISSION PAYMENTS U/S . 195 OF T H E A CT . THEREFORE THE PRO V ISIONS OF SEC . 40(A)( I ) HAVE NO APPLICATION IN THE PRESENT CAS E. ACCORDINGLY THE ADDI T IONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN BO T H O F THE ASSESSM E NT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION PAYMEN T S FO R NON-DEDUCTION OF TDS U F S . 40(A)(I) R.W . S . 195 OF THE ACT ARE NOT JUSTIFIED AND DELET E D . 9 ITA NOS.134 & 135 /MDS/2014 & CO NOS.27 & 28/MDS/2014 6. ON READING OF THE ABOVE IMPUGNED ORDER WE DO N OT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN DELETING DISALLOWANCE OF SA LES COMMISSION PAID TO OVERSEAS AGENTS AS THE SALES COMMISSION WAS PAID ONLY FOR PROCURING ORDERS AND N O TECHNICAL SERVICES WERE PROVIDED BY THE NON-RESIDEN T AGENTS TO THE ASSESSEE. THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DO NOT FALL UNDER INTEREST ROYALTY OR FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES. THE SAID SUM PAID TO NON-RESIDENT AGENTS IS NOT CHARGEA BLE TO TAX IN INDIA. THEREFORE SUCH SUMS WILL NOT FALL UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 195 OF THE ACT FOR DEDUCTING TDS IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT I N THE CASE OF G.E. INDIA TECHNOLOGY CENTRE (P) LTD. V. CI T (SUPRA). IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN DELETING DISALLOWANCE AND REJECT THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISE D BY THE REVENUE. 7. SINCE THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSE ARE ONLY TO SUPPORT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THEY ARE DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 10 ITA NOS.134 & 135 /MDS/2014 & CO NOS.27 & 28/MDS/2014 8. IN THE RESULT BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE A ND CROSS OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THURSDAY TH E 31 ST DAY OF JULY 2014 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ( CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD ) . ( ' )* ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER/ ) ) /CHENNAI - /DATED 31 ST JULY 2014 SOMU /0 10 /COPY TO: 1. ASSESSEE 2. ASSESSING OFFICER 3. 2 () /CIT(A) 4. 2 /CIT 5. 0 6 /DR 6. /GF .