Section 10(6A) — the law in short
What the courts have decided on section 10(6A), in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.
-
Hyder Consulting Ltd v CIT
Advance RulingCuts both waysValidity unconfirmed
The State government paying our consultancy fee is deducting tax at 42.85 per cent when the India-UK treaty caps technical fees at 15 per cent, and it - not we - has already gone to the Assessing Officer under s.195(2). Can we still get an advance ruling on the rate?
Yes on maintainability, and yes on the rate. The Authority held the application maintainable because the s.195(2) reference had been made by the Government of Orissa as payer, not by the applicant, so nothing was pending in the applicant's own case within clause (a) of the proviso to s.245R(2). On the substance it held the receipts were fees for technical services and that deduction was to be made at 15 per cent of the gross amount under article 13 of the India-UK agreement, not at the 42.85 per cent the Income-tax Officer (TDS) had arrived at. It refused to rule on whether the sums routed through the applicant to its Indian sub-consultant were its income at all - that was a question of fact for the Assessing Officer. The ruling binds only Hyder Consulting.
Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.