My non-resident client's Indian customers did deduct tax at source, but the Assessing Officer has still charged s.234B interest for an assessment year after 2012-13, saying the Finance Act, 2012 proviso removes the s.209(1)(d) credit. Is that right?
No. The Delhi Tribunal held that the proviso inserted in s.209(1)(d) by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 1 April 2012 'would apply only in a scenario where person responsible for deducting tax has paid or credited such income without deduction of tax', and that where the income was received by the assessee after deduction of tax at source the proviso is not applicable. Reading s.209(1)(d) with its proviso, it held that where in the case of a non-resident company the tax deductible at source has been paid, it is not permissible for the Revenue to charge interest under s.234B for an alleged failure to pay advance tax, and it allowed the ground for both assessment year 2012-13 and assessment year 2019-20.
Decided by the ITAT (Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice President and Ms. Astha Chandra, Judicial Member (ITAT Delhi Bench 'D')) on 2024-05-03, reported as ITA Nos. 2090/Del/2023, 2305/Del/2022, 2091/Del/2023 and 3102/Del/2023; assessment years 2012-13, 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22. It bears on section 234B, section 209, section 209(1)(d), section 44BB, section 147, section 148, section 144C, section 234A, section 244A, section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act 1961, in TDS Defaults, Assessment & Scrutiny and How Tax Law Is Read matters.
The proviso is routinely read as though it abolished the s.209(1)(d) credit for non-residents from 1 April 2012 onwards. It did not. It is conditional on its own words, and the condition is a fact about the payer's conduct — that he paid or credited the income without deducting, or received or debited it without collecting. Where the payer did deduct, the condition is not met and the main clause operates unchanged, so the payee's advance tax stands reduced by the tax deductible on that income and there is nothing for s.234B to work on. That is the value of this order: it is one of the few decisions to apply the proviso to an assessment year that is squarely on its far side. Assessment year 2019-20, which was one of the years before the Tribunal, corresponds to the financial year 2018-19 and is well after 1 April 2012, so the point could not be disposed of, as it can for assessment year 2012-13, by saying the proviso had not yet arrived. The limits of the order are worth stating plainly, because the Revenue will press them. It is a Tribunal order, so it binds nobody outside the case; the finding that tax had in fact been deducted rests on the submission of the assessee's representative as recorded at paragraph 19.2 and was not tested against the record as reported; and the Tribunal's own stated reason at paragraph 19.3 — that the Supreme Court in Mitsubishi Corporation held the proviso "applicable prospectively after FY 2012-13" — cannot by itself support the result for assessment year 2019-20, which is squarely after that year. The whole weight of the order for a post-2012 year therefore falls on paragraph 19.2, the reading of the proviso as conditional on the payer having paid or credited without deducting. Expect that to be met with the Supreme Court's own sentence at paragraph 20 of Mitsubishi Corporation, that "the position has changed since the financial year 2012-13, in view of the proviso to Section 209 (1) (d)", and be ready to answer it on the words of the proviso, which speak only of income paid or credited without deduction.
Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The assessee is a foreign company resident in Canada, engaged in supplying reservoir simulation software to oil companies such as ONGC, Oil India and Vedanta, together with software maintenance support and training services. Examining a list of non-filers, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee had not filed a return for assessment year 2012-13 despite receipts from Cairn Energy India Pty. Ltd., Prize Petroleum Company Ltd., Shell India Market Pvt. Ltd. and Reliance Industries Ltd. on which TDS had been deducted, and issued a notice under s.148 on 29 March 2019. There was no compliance; the officer issued notices under s.133(6) to the payers, concluded that the products and services supported oil and gas exploration and production, applied s.44BB, and computed income at Rs 36,43,546, being ten per cent of receipts of Rs 3,64,35,459. A draft order was passed on 30 December 2019 and, no objection having been filed before the Dispute Resolution Panel, the final order was passed on 21 February 2020 under s.144C/144/147. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the reassessment, declined to admit additional evidence under rule 46A and concurred with the Dispute Resolution Panel's directions for assessment years 2019-20 and 2020-21 applying s.44BB. Before the Tribunal, the assessee challenged among other things the levy of interest under s.234B on the ground that the section is inapplicable to a non-resident — ground No. 8 in assessment year 2012-13 and ground No. 6 in assessment year 2019-20. Its representative submitted that the income in question had been received after deduction of tax at source.
All four appeals were allowed for statistical purposes (paragraph 22), and the ground against the levy of interest under s.234B was allowed for assessment year 2012-13 and assessment year 2019-20 (paragraph 19.4). The proviso inserted in s.209(1)(d) by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 1 April 2012 applies only where the person responsible for deducting tax has paid or credited the income without deduction of tax; where the income has been received after deduction of tax at source, the proviso is not applicable, and under s.209(1)(d) read with its proviso, where in the case of a non-resident company the tax deductible at source has been paid, it is not permissible for the Revenue to charge interest under s.234B for an alleged failure to pay advance tax (paragraph 19.2).
The Tribunal set out the proviso to s.209(1)(d) verbatim and recorded that it was inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 1 April 2012 (paragraph 19.1). It then read the proviso as conditional on the payer having paid or credited the income without deducting, noted the assessee's submission that the receipts had suffered deduction, and concluded that the proviso was not attracted, so that s.209(1)(d) with its proviso left no room for a s.234B charge on a non-resident whose tax deductible at source had been paid (paragraph 19.2). It then relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Mitsubishi Corporation for the proposition that the proviso applies prospectively after the financial year 2012-13, and on the coordinate bench decision in Amadeus IT Group SA v. ACIT, ITA No. 1742/Del/2023 dated 16 October 2023, and held that no interest under s.234B could be levied, allowing ground No. 8 in AY 2012-13 and ground No. 6 in AY 2019-20 (paragraphs 19.3 and 19.4).
It can be seen from the above that proviso inserted in section 209(1)(d) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01.04.2012 would apply only in a scenario where person responsible for deducting tax has paid or credited such income without deduction of tax.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppNo. The Delhi Tribunal held that the proviso inserted in s.209(1)(d) by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 1 April 2012 'would apply only in a scenario where person responsible for deducting tax has paid or credited such income without deduction of tax', and that where the income was received by the assessee after deduction of tax at source the proviso is not applicable. Reading s.209(1)(d) with its proviso, it held that where in the case of a non-resident company the tax deductible at source has been paid, it is not permissible for the Revenue to charge interest under s.234B for an alleged failure to pay advance tax, and it allowed the ground for both assessment year 2012-13 and assessment year 2019-20. This was decided by the ITAT (Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice President and Ms. Astha Chandra, Judicial Member (ITAT Delhi Bench 'D')) and bears on section 234B, section 209, section 209(1)(d), section 44BB, section 147, section 148, section 144C, section 234A, section 244A, section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as ITA Nos. 2090/Del/2023, 2305/Del/2022, 2091/Del/2023 and 3102/Del/2023; assessment years 2012-13, 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22. The proviso is routinely read as though it abolished the s.209(1)(d) credit for non-residents from 1 April 2012 onwards. It did not. It is conditional on its own words, and the condition is a fact about the payer's conduct — that he paid or credited the income without deducting, or received or debited it without collecting. Where the payer did deduct, the condition is not met and the main clause operates unchanged, so the payee's advance tax stands reduced by the tax deductible on that income and there is nothing for s.234B to work on. That is the value of this order: it is one of the few decisions to apply the proviso to an assessment year that is squarely on its far side. Assessment year 2019-20, which was one of the years before the Tribunal, corresponds to the financial year 2018-19 and is well after 1 April 2012, so the point could not be disposed of, as it can for assessment year 2012-13, by saying the proviso had not yet arrived. The limits of the order are worth stating plainly, because the Revenue will press them. It is a Tribunal order, so it binds nobody outside the case; the finding that tax had in fact been deducted rests on the submission of the assessee's representative as recorded at paragraph 19.2 and was not tested against the record as reported; and the Tribunal's own stated reason at paragraph 19.3 — that the Supreme Court in Mitsubishi Corporation held the proviso "applicable prospectively after FY 2012-13" — cannot by itself support the result for assessment year 2019-20, which is squarely after that year. The whole weight of the order for a post-2012 year therefore falls on paragraph 19.2, the reading of the proviso as conditional on the payer having paid or credited without deducting. Expect that to be met with the Supreme Court's own sentence at paragraph 20 of Mitsubishi Corporation, that "the position has changed since the financial year 2012-13, in view of the proviso to Section 209 (1) (d)", and be ready to answer it on the words of the proviso, which speak only of income paid or credited without deduction. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Prove the deduction as a fact before arguing the law. Produce Form 16A, the payer's TDS statement, the Form 26AS or AIS entry, or the payer's ledger, for each receipt in issue.
The assessee is a foreign company resident in Canada, engaged in supplying reservoir simulation software to oil companies such as ONGC, Oil India and Vedanta, together with software maintenance support and training services. Examining a list of non-filers, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee had not filed a return for assessment year 2012-13 despite receipts from Cairn Energy India Pty. Ltd., Prize Petroleum Company Ltd., Shell India Market Pvt. Ltd. and Reliance Industries Ltd. on which TDS had been deducted, and issued a notice under s.148 on 29 March 2019. There was no compliance; the officer issued notices under s.133(6) to the payers, concluded that the products and services supported oil and gas exploration and production, applied s.44BB, and computed income at Rs 36,43,546, being ten per cent of receipts of Rs 3,64,35,459. A draft order was passed on 30 December 2019 and, no objection having been filed before the Dispute Resolution Panel, the final order was passed on 21 February 2020 under s.144C/144/147. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the reassessment, declined to admit additional evidence under rule 46A and concurred with the Dispute Resolution Panel's directions for assessment years 2019-20 and 2020-21 applying s.44BB. Before the Tribunal, the assessee challenged among other things the levy of interest under s.234B on the ground that the section is inapplicable to a non-resident — ground No. 8 in assessment year 2012-13 and ground No. 6 in assessment year 2019-20. Its representative submitted that the income in question had been received after deduction of tax at source. The matter was decided on 2024-05-03 by the ITAT (Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice President and Ms. Astha Chandra, Judicial Member (ITAT Delhi Bench 'D')). On those facts the ITAT held as follows. All four appeals were allowed for statistical purposes (paragraph 22), and the ground against the levy of interest under s.234B was allowed for assessment year 2012-13 and assessment year 2019-20 (paragraph 19.4). The proviso inserted in s.209(1)(d) by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 1 April 2012 applies only where the person responsible for deducting tax has paid or credited the income without deduction of tax; where the income has been received after deduction of tax at source, the proviso is not applicable, and under s.209(1)(d) read with its proviso, where in the case of a non-resident company the tax deductible at source has been paid, it is not permissible for the Revenue to charge interest under s.234B for an alleged failure to pay advance tax (paragraph 19.2).
The Tribunal set out the proviso to s.209(1)(d) verbatim and recorded that it was inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 1 April 2012 (paragraph 19.1). It then read the proviso as conditional on the payer having paid or credited the income without deducting, noted the assessee's submission that the receipts had suffered deduction, and concluded that the proviso was not attracted, so that s.209(1)(d) with its proviso left no room for a s.234B charge on a non-resident whose tax deductible at source had been paid (paragraph 19.2). It then relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Mitsubishi Corporation for the proposition that the proviso applies prospectively after the financial year 2012-13, and on the coordinate bench decision in Amadeus IT Group SA v. ACIT, ITA No. 1742/Del/2023 dated 16 October 2023, and held that no interest under s.234B could be levied, allowing ground No. 8 in AY 2012-13 and ground No. 6 in AY 2019-20 (paragraphs 19.3 and 19.4). In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "It can be seen from the above that proviso inserted in section 209(1)(d) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01.04.2012 would apply only in a scenario where person responsible for deducting tax has paid or credited such income without deduction of tax." The decision followed or applied DIT v. Mitsubishi Corporation, 130 taxmann.com 276 (SC) — followed; Amadeus IT Group SA v. ACIT, ITA No. 1742/Del/2023 dated 16.10.2023 (ITAT Delhi), and the Delhi High Court's disposal of the Revenue's appeal against it — followed.
It was decided by the ITAT on 2024-05-03 and is reported as ITA Nos. 2090/Del/2023, 2305/Del/2022, 2091/Del/2023 and 3102/Del/2023; assessment years 2012-13, 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22. Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A Tribunal decision binds the assessing officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) within that Tribunal's jurisdiction, and is persuasive before other benches. It is not binding on a High Court, and a contrary co-ordinate bench decision will be argued against you, so check whether the point has been taken the other way before you build a reply around it. On section 234B, section 209, section 209(1)(d), section 44BB, section 147, section 148, section 144C, section 234A, section 244A, section 133(6), the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the taxpayer. All four appeals were allowed for statistical purposes (paragraph 22), and the ground against the levy of interest under s.234B was allowed for assessment year 2012-13 and assessment year 2019-20 (paragraph 19.4). The proviso inserted in s.209(1)(d) by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 1 April 2012 applies only where the person responsible for deducting tax has paid or credited the income without deduction of tax; where the income has been received after deduction of tax at source, the proviso is not applicable, and under s.209(1)(d) read with its proviso, where in the case of a non-resident company the tax deductible at source has been paid, it is not permissible for the Revenue to charge interest under s.234B for an alleged failure to pay advance tax (paragraph 19.2). It arises in TDS Defaults, Assessment & Scrutiny and How Tax Law Is Read matters, on section 234B, section 209, section 209(1)(d), section 44BB, section 147, section 148, section 144C, section 234A, section 244A, section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice President and Ms. Astha Chandra, Judicial Member (ITAT Delhi Bench 'D'). Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Put the proviso's condition in the forefront of the submission: it withdraws the s.209(1)(d) reduction only where the person responsible for deducting has paid or credited the income without deduction of tax, or the collector has received or debited without collection. Keep the credit claim and the advance tax claim separate. Credit for the tax deducted is claimed under s.199, and the Tribunal here dealt with that as a separate ground; the advance tax point under s.209(1)(d) does not depend on the credit being allowed. Where the payer deducted but did not deposit, add s.205, which bars a direct demand on the payee to the extent tax has been deducted; do not let the two points be run together. For an assessment year up to 2012-13, take the simpler point first — the proviso operates from 1 April 2012 and does not reach an earlier financial year at all — and keep this order for the years that follow. Cite this as a Tribunal order at paragraph 19.2, and expect two answers: that the passage is obiter for assessment year 2012-13, and that the Tribunal's own reasoning at paragraph 19.3 does not fit assessment year 2019-20. The year that carries the point is assessment year 2019-20, and the argument that carries it is the conditional wording of the proviso itself.
Validity check could not be completed. Validity check could not be completed: no search for later treatment of this order was run this pass, and it is in any event a Tribunal order of persuasive value only. The statutory proposition it turns on — the exact words of the proviso to s.209(1)(d) — was independently verified against five departmental section pages and against s.83 of the Finance Act, 2012, and the commencement date it states (1 April 2012) is consistent with s.1(2) of that Act. The finding that tax had in fact been deducted rests on the assessee's representative's submission as recorded at paragraph 19.2 and was not tested by the Tribunal on the record as reported. The Tribunal's stated reason at paragraph 19.3, that the Supreme Court held the proviso applicable prospectively after the financial year 2012-13, does not on its own support the result for assessment year 2019-20, so the order is vulnerable on its reasoning even though its reading of the proviso at paragraph 19.2 is sound on the statutory words. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
The order was read at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/100170951/ (plain document URL, which returned raw text). Paragraph numbering was established by transcription and then re-established independently on verification, because the first transcription was wrong. The correct numbering of the relevant stretch is: paragraph 19 (the ground against the levy of interest under s.234B — 'In ground No. 8 in AY 2012-13 and ground No. 6 in AY 2019-20, the assessee has challenged the levy of interest under section 234B of the Act on the ground of its inapplicability in case of a non-resident'), 19.1 (the proviso set out verbatim), 19.2 (the holding quoted in this entry), 19.3 (reliance on Mitsubishi Corporation), 19.4 (the ground allowed), then 20 (premature penalty grounds), 21 (remaining grounds academic or not pressed) and 22, which is the LAST paragraph and carries the disposal: 'In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AY 2012-13, 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22 are allowed for statistical purposes.', followed by 'Order pronounced in the open court on 3rd May, 2024' and the signature block. There is no paragraph 23. A caution for later readers, and a serious one: on the first pass the fetch layer, when ASKED to list the paragraph numbers, invented a sequence including '7.1 to 7.6' and said the last paragraph was 22; when asked to TRANSCRIBE the same stretch it returned the same content renumbered as 20, 20.1 to 20.4 and 23. Both were wrong. The numbering above was fixed by transcribing paragraphs 20 to the end continuously and by separately retrieving each sub-paragraph through /docfragment/ queries that print the paragraph number alongside the text. Do not take a paragraph number from this document on a single route. The ITA numbers and the assessment years are given as printed in the header; the order does not pair them one-to-one in the header block and this entry does not attempt to. Later treatment was not checked: no search for decisions citing this order was run. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
All four appeals were allowed for statistical purposes (paragraph 22), and the ground against the levy of interest under s.234B was allowed for assessment year 2012-13 and assessment year 2019-20 (paragraph 19.4). The proviso inserted in s.209(1)(d) by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 1 April 2012 applies only where the person responsible for deducting tax has paid or credited the income without deduction of tax; where the income has been received after deduction of tax at source, the proviso is not applicable, and under s.209(1)(d) read with its proviso, where in the case of a non-resident company the tax deductible at source has been paid, it is not permissible for the Revenue to charge interest under s.234B for an alleged failure to pay advance tax (paragraph 19.2).
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
My return was only processed under 143(1). Does that stop the department reopening it later?
Has the Supreme Court settled whether the s.144C nine-month DRP process runs over and above the s.153 limitation?
How much am I actually required to disclose — and can they reopen because the officer drew the wrong conclusion?
The sanctioning authority just wrote 'yes' and signed. Is that a sanction?