Section 197

Section 197 — the law in short

What the courts have decided on section 197, in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.

• AAR v Tiger Global International II Holdings Supreme CourtHelps departmentValidity unconfirmed
  I hold a Mauritius TRC. Can the department still deny me treaty relief on the capital gains?
  Yes. A Tax Residency Certificate is a necessary eligibility requirement under s.90(4) but is not sufficient or conclusive evidence of residence, beneficial ownership or entitlement to treaty benefits, and the authorities may examine the substance of the arrangement. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, restored the AAR's rejection and held the gains taxable in India.
• Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd v CIT Supreme CourtHelps department
  I am paying a foreign supplier for equipment and its erection. Most of the payment is cost, not profit. Must I deduct tax at source under section 195 at all?
  Yes. The Supreme Court held that any other sum chargeable under the provisions of this Act in section 195(1) is not confined to pure income profits. A sum is within the section if it is chargeable to tax, and that includes a sum in which income is hidden or embedded, such as a trading receipt of which only a fraction is taxable. The deduction is tentative, subject to regular assessment, and the payer's and recipient's protection lies in applying under section 195(2) or (3) or section 197 for a determination of the chargeable proportion or a lower or nil deduction.
• Transmission Corporation of AP Ltd v CIT Supreme CourtHelps departmentValidity unconfirmed
  I am paying a foreign supplier for equipment and for erecting it, and only part of that is really his income - must I deduct tax under section 195 on the whole payment?
  Yes, unless you first get the chargeable proportion fixed. The Supreme Court held that any other sum chargeable under the provisions of this Act in section 195(1) is not limited to payments that are wholly pure income profits; it covers a gross trading receipt in which income is embedded. The payer's obligation is confined to the appropriate proportion of income chargeable, but that proportion is determined on an application under section 195(2), or by the recipient under section 195(3) or section 197. If no application is made, tax must be deducted on the sum paid. The assessee's appeals were dismissed with costs.
• Manjeet Singh Chawla v Dy CIT (TDS) High CourtHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  If the payment for the fall in option value is not salary, is it capital gains?
  On this decision, neither. The Karnataka High Court held that compensation for the diminution in value of stock options that were never exercised is a capital receipt not chargeable under any head, and quashed the order rejecting the employee's application for a nil withholding certificate.
• Nishithkumar Mukeshkumar Mehta v Dy CIT High CourtHelps departmentUnder appeal
  Is compensation for the fall in value of stock options taxable as salary if I keep the options?
  Yes, on this decision. The Madras High Court held that where the employee paid nothing for the options and kept all of them after receiving the compensation, the whole receipt was a perquisite taxable under the head Salaries, and refused the nil-deduction certificate sought under s.197.
• Sanjay Baweja v Dy CIT High CourtHelps taxpayerHigh Courts differ
  My employer paid me for the fall in value of options I never exercised. Is that a perquisite?
  No, on this decision. The Delhi High Court held that a one-time voluntary payment made to holders of unexercised stock options after a group disinvestment was not a perquisite under s.17(2)(vi), because the value of specified securities depends on the exercise of the option and no option had been exercised. The refusal of a nil-deduction certificate under s.197 was set aside.
• Molasi Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Ltd v ITO High CourtHelps department
  We are a primary agricultural credit society drawing cash to lend to farmers. Must the bank still deduct under s.194N?
  Yes. The Madras High Court held that a primary agricultural credit co-operative society is not within the exceptions to s.194N, so the deduction on cash withdrawals above the threshold stands, and the requirement is non-negotiable except in line with the specific exceptions in the proviso. Relief, if any, has to come from the competent government authority; s.194N is not one of the sections for which a nil or lower deduction certificate can be sought under s.197.
• Maple Logistics P Ltd v Pr Chief CIT High CourtHelps taxpayerSuperseded by amendment
  My refund is being withheld under s.241A because my case is in scrutiny. Is a scrutiny notice enough?
  No — but fix the year first. For AYs 2017-18 to 2022-23 the return had to be processed and the refund determined, and s.241A was the only route to hold it back: it needed a written, reasoned, approved order showing why paying THIS refund was likely to hurt the revenue, and repeating the words of the section, or pointing to the s.143(2) notice, is not a reason. Section 241A ceased to apply from 1 April 2023 (Finance Act 2023) and the withholding power now sits in s.245(2), which requires the same written reasons and the same previous approval of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. The reasoning below transfers, but for AY 2023-24 onwards the order to demand, and to attack, is a s.245(2) order.
• Bently Nevada LLC v ITO High CourtHelps taxpayer
  The officer issued my 197 certificate at a higher rate without giving reasons. Can I challenge it?
  Yes. An order under s.197 is quasi-judicial and must rest on valid and cogent reasoning applying the objective criteria in Rule 28AA. A 5% certificate issued on a superior officer's instruction, departing from a consistent 1.5% history without reasons, was quashed and remitted for a fresh reasoned order.
• DIT v OHM Ltd High CourtHelps taxpayer
  I am a foreign company providing survey and data services to an offshore oil exploration block in India. Am I taxed at 10% of gross under section 44BB, or must I go under section 44DA?
  Section 44BB applies. The Delhi High Court upheld the Authority for Advance Rulings and held that where a non-resident provides services in connection with prospecting for or extraction or production of mineral oils, section 44BB governs the computation, not section 44DA. Section 44BB is the special provision and section 44DA the general one, so generalia specialibus non derogant applies. Reading section 44DA as covering everything would reduce section 44BB to a dead letter. The provisos inserted by the Finance Act 2010 in both sections are clarificatory on computation and do not change either section's sphere of operation.
• In re Rotem Company and Mitsubishi Corporation Advance RulingHelps taxpayer
  We are in a consortium supplying rolling stock to Delhi Metro. Our returns are filed and a writ about the TDS rate is pending. Can we still get an advance ruling?
  Yes. The Authority held the applications maintainable and allowed them so that rulings could be pronounced. On the bar in clause (i) of the proviso to section 245R(2) it held that the mere filing of returns by the applicants would not fall within the mischief of that clause, no notice under section 143(2) having been issued to them before the date of the applications. The proceedings that were on foot - applications under section 197 for determination of the rate of deduction, an appeal against the order on them and a writ petition - concerned the rate of tax for deduction at source, and did not involve the questions the Authority was being asked to decide.
• Tekniskil (Sendirian) Berhard v CIT Advance RulingHelps taxpayerSuperseded by amendment
  We are a Malaysian company that recruits skilled workers abroad and supplies them to a Korean contractor working offshore India. We are paid outside India and we supervise nothing. Are we taxable here?
  No. The Authority ruled that Tekniskil, a Malaysian manpower company, was not taxable in India on sums received abroad and had no permanent establishment here. It supplied about a hundred skilled workers to Hyundai Heavy Industries for offshore installation work at Bombay High. It recruited them outside India, bore their mobilisation and personal costs, and handed them over; HHI directed and supervised them on its own barges. Supplying labour was a business activity, so article 7 of the India-Malaysia agreement applied, and with no fixed place at Tekniskil's disposal there was nothing for the profits to attach to. The ruling binds only Tekniskil.

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.