Provisions Of TDS Under Section 195 – An Update – Part I

In
view of increasing cross border transactions which Indian enterprises have with
the non-residents, section 195 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] dealing
with deduction of tax at source from payments to non-residents has assumed huge
importance over the years. Many amendments have taken place in the section(s),
relevant rules and forms relating to deduction of tax at source from payments
to non-residents. In addition, due huge litigation in this regard, there have
been plethora of judicial pronouncements and cleavage of judicial opinions on
various contentious issues. In this series of articles, we are dealing with the
amended provisions as well as various important judicial pronouncements and
practical issues relating to TDS u/s. 195.

In
view of the vastness of the subject, plethora of issues, judicial
pronouncements and space limitations, at various places we have only referred
to relevant statutory provisions, CBDT Circulars and Instructions and judicial
pronouncements. For a better understanding of the issues, reader is advised to
study the same in detail.

1.
Overview of Relevant Provisions

1.1     Relevant sections

1.2     Other TDS provisions for payments to
non-residents

1.3     Relevant Rules and Forms

2.
Section 195 (1)

Other
sums.

195. (1) Any person responsible for paying to a non-resident, not being a
company, or to a foreign company, any interest (not being interest referred to
in section 194LB or section 194LC or section 194LD) or any other sum
chargeable under the provisions of this Act (not being income chargeable
under the head “Salaries”) shall, at
the time of credit of such income to the account of the payee or at the time of payment thereof in cash
or by the issue of a cheque or draft or by any other mode, whichever is earlier, deduct income-tax
thereon at the rates in force:

Provided that ….

Provided
further
that no such deduction shall be made in respect of any dividends referred to in
section 115-O.

Explanation
1.—For
the purposes of this section, where any interest or other sum as aforesaid is
credited to any account, whether called “Interest payable account”
or “Suspense account” or by any other name, in the books of
account of the person liable to pay such income, such crediting shall be
deemed to be credit of such income to the account of the payee and the
provisions of this section shall apply accordingly.

Explanation
2.—For
the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the obligation to
comply with s/s. (1) and to make deduction thereunder applies and shall be
deemed to have always applied and extends and shall be deemed to have always
extended to all persons, resident or non-resident, whether or not the
non-resident person has—

(i) a
residence or place of business or business connection in India; or

(ii)        any
other presence in any manner whatsoever in India.”

2.1     Section 195(1) – Exclusions

The following are excluded from the scope
of section 195(1):

(i)  Interest
referred to in section 194LB or section 194LC or section 194LD.

(ii) Income
chargeable under the head “Salaries”.

(iii)       Dividends
referred to in section 115-O.

(iv)       Sum
not chargeable to tax in India.

a.  Non-chargeability
either due to Act or Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement [DTAA]. DTAA benefit
subject to obtaining TRC/Form 10F from the non-resident payee.

b.  Due
to scope of total income u/s. 5 or exemption u/s. 10.

c.  No
TDS on amounts exempt u/s. 10 – Hyderabad Industries Ltd. vs. ITO 188 ITR
749 (Kar).

d.  Income
from specified services such as online advertisement, digital advertising space
subject to Equalisation Levy (Chapter VIII of Finance Act 2016) – Exempt
u/s. 10(50).

(v) Section
172 – Profits of non-residents from Occasional Shipping Business

a.  CBDT
Cir. No. 723 dated 19.09.1995 – Payments to shipping agents of non-resident
ship owners – Provisions of section 172 apply and section 194C/195 will not
apply.

b.  CBDT
Cir. No. 732 dated 20.12.1995 – Annual No Objection Certificate u/s. 172 to be
issued by AO where Article 8 of DTAA applies – declaration that only
international traffic during period of validity of certificate.

c.  CIT
vs. V. S. Dempo & Co (P) Ltd. 381 ITR 303 (Bom) – Section 195 not
applicable to shipping profits governed by section 172 and section 44B.

(vi)       Where
certificate is obtained by the payee u/s 197 for non-deduction of TDS and such
certificate is in force (not cancelled), then the payer cannot be treated as
assessee in default for non-deduction of TDS – CIT vs. Bovis Lend Lease
(I) Ltd. 241 Taxman 312 (SC).

2.2     Scope of section 195 (1) – Inclusions

(i)  Any
person responsible for paying to a non-resident, not being a company or a
Foreign Company is covered in the scope of section 195(1). It includes all
taxable entities and there is no exclusion for individual/HUF.

(ii) The
term person includes a local authority. In CIT vs. Warner Hindustan
Limited 158 ITR 51 (AP), the court while holding that the expression
“person” includes a Department of a foreign government like USAID held that “As
observed by us already the expression “person” is of wide connotation and it
includes, in our opinion, the Department of a foreign Government like USAID.
Learned counsel for the assessee invited our attention to a decision in Madras
Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. vs. Boar land (Inspector of Taxes) [1935] 27
ITR 612 (HL), to support the proposition that the expression “person” includes
Crown. We find that the above-referred decision supports the view that a
Government falls within the meaning of the expression “person”.”

(iii)       Section
195 includes residents as well as non-residents. Following the decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of Vodafone International Holdings BV vs. Union
of India 341 ITR 1 (SC), Explanation 2 has been inserted by the
Finance Act, 2012 with retrospective effect from 1.4.1962, which clearly
provides that ‘For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that
the obligation to comply with sub-section (1) and to make deduction thereunder
applies and shall be deemed to have always applied and extends and shall be
deemed to have always extended to all persons, resident or non-resident,
whether or not the non-resident person has (i) a residence or place of business
or business connection in India; or (ii) any other presence in any manner
whatsoever in India.

(iv)       If
a person is treated as agent of a non-resident u/s.163, the same person cannot
be proceeded u/s. 201 at the same time for non-deduction of TDS on payment to
non-resident. CIT vs. Premier Tyres Ltd. 134 ITR 17 (Bom).

(v) The
term Non-Resident includes a Non-resident Indian. However, it does not include
a person who is Resident but Not Ordinarily Resident [RNOR]. It is important to
note that the term non-resident includes RNOR for the purposes of sections 92,
93 and 168 but  not for the purposes of
section 195.

(vi)       Residential
status of a person i.e. whether he is resident or non-resident based on the
physical presence test in India of more 182 days in the current year may not be
known till year end. A question arises as to in the initial months of a
financial year, how it has to be determined as to a person is non-resident or
not.

Whether earlier year’s residential status
can be adopted in such cases? The Authority for Advance Ruling [AAR] in the
case of Robert W. Smith vs. CIT 212 ITR 275 (AAR) and Monte Harris vs.
CIT 218 ITR 413 (AAR), for purposes of determining the residential
status of an applicant u/s. 245Q, held that it appears more practical and
reasonable for purposes of determining the residential status of an applicant
u/s. 245Q to look at the position in the earlier previous year, i.e., the
financial year immediately preceding the financial year in which the
application is made. In the Monte Harris’s case, the AAR observed as follows:

“An application may be presented soon
after the commencement of the financial year. It may also have to be disposed
of before the end of that financial year. In that event, both on the date of
the application as well as on the date on which the application is heard and
disposed of, it may not be possible in all cases to predict with reasonable
accuracy whether the stay of the applicant in India during that financial year
will exceed 182 days or not. In other words, it will be difficult to determine
the residential status of the applicant with reference to the previous year of
the date of application. The expression ‘previous year’ should be so construed
as to be applicable uniformly to all cases. It cannot be said that a previous
year should be taken as the financial year in which the application is made
provided the stay of the applicant up to the date of the application or the
estimated stay of the applicant in India in that financial year exceeds 182
days and that it should be the previous year preceding that financial year in
case it is not possible to determine the duration of the stay of the applicant
in India in the financial year in which the application is made. It appears
more practical and reasonable for purposes of determining the residential status
of an applicant under section 245Q to look at the position in the earlier
previous year, i.e., the financial year immediately preceding the financial
year in which the application is made. This is a period with reference to which
the residential status of the applicant in every case can be determined without
any ambiguity whatsoever. In the instant case, though the applicant was
resident in India in the financial year 1994-95 during which the application
had been made, he was non-resident in India during the immediately preceding
financial year, i.e., 1993-94. The applicant must, therefore, be treated as a
non-resident for the purposes of the instant application. The application was,
therefore, maintainable.”

It remains to be judicially tested as to
whether a similar stand can be taken for the purposes of section 195(1).

(vii) In respect of TDS from the payment
to an agent of a non-resident in the following cases it was held that the payer
is required to deduct tax at source:

–   Narsee
Nagsee & Co. vs. CIT 35 ITR 134 (Bom).

–   R.
Prakash [2014] 64 SOT 10 (Bang.)

However, in the case of Tecumseh Products
(I) Ltd. [2007] 13 SOT 489 (Hyd.), the ITAT, on the facts of the case, held
that the assessee was not liable to TDS as the primary responsibility for payment
of interest was of the Bank and not of the assessee, though later on the bank
may recover the amount of interest paid by it from the assessee. In this
regard, the ITAT held as follows:

“In the instant case, the question for
consideration was as to who was responsible for making payment of interest to
the non-resident bank. Admittedly, the interest was paid by Andhra Bank and not
by the assessee. The case of the department was that since the bank had paid
interest on behalf of the assessee as an agent, the assessee was responsible
for making deduction of tax before payment. It was not in dispute that in terms
of letter of credit, non-resident bank negotiated with the Andhra Bank for
payment of interest on late payment. When the supplier presented the letter of
credit and negotiated the same through non-resident bank in terms of letter of
credit, Andhra Bank was bound to pay interest in case of any late payment. The
Andhra Bank might recover the payment from the assessee, but the immediate
responsibility was that of Andhra Bank and not the assessee. The Legislature
has used the words “any person responsible for paying”. In instant
case, the responsibility was of Andhra Bank and not of the assessee. The
payment might have been made on behalf of the assessee but that did not take
away the responsibility of Andhra Bank from paying interest to the foreign
bank. Therefore, it might not be proper to say that the assessee failed to
deduct tax while paying interest to the foreign banker.”

(viii) The term ‘any person’ includes a
foreign company, whether it is resident in India or not. It also includes
Indian branch of foreign company.

a)  Section
195(3) and Rule 29B contains relevant provisions regarding grant of a
certificate by the AO authorising such a branch to receive interest or other
sum without TDS as long as the certificate is force.

b)  A
foreign company having a branch or office in India is also covered. ITO vs.
Intel Tech India P. Ltd. 32 SOT 227 (Bang).

However, it is to be noted that payments
to foreign branch of an Indian company is not covered under the provisions of
section 195.

c)  Payment
by a branch to HO/Other foreign branch.

There is a cleavage of judicial
pronouncements on the subject. However, in respect of payment of interest by
the PE of a foreign bank, the law has been amended by insertion of Explanation
to section 9(1)(v), which has been explained below.

i. TDS Required: CBDT
Circular 740 dtd 17.4.1996 – Branch of a foreign company is a separate entity
and hence payment of interest by branch to HO is taxable u/s. 115A subject to
provisions of applicable DTAA.

Dresdner Bank [2007] 108 ITD 375 (Mum.).

CBDT Circular No. 649 dated 31^st
March 1993 providing for treatment of technical expenses when being remitted to
Head Office of a non-resident enterprise by its branch office in India requires
that the branch – permanent establishment – should ensure tax deduction at
source in such cases in accordance with the provisions of section 195 of the
Act.

ii.  TDS
Not Required: In the following cases it was held that TDS u/s 195 is
not applicable.

ABN Amro Bank NV vs. CIT [2012] 343 ITR
81(Cal),

Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi Ltd vs. DIT 53
taxmann.com 105 (Cal),

Deutsche Bank AG vs. ADIT 65 SOT 175
(Mum), and

Sumitomo Mitsui Bank Corpn vs. DDIT [2012]
136 ITD 66 (Mum)(SB).

iii. Amendment
vide Finance Act 2015 w.e.f 1.4.2016

Interest deemed to accrue or arise in
India u/s. 9(1)(v). Explanation inserted to section 9(1)(v) reads as follows:

“Explanation: for the purposes of this
clause,-

(a) it
is hereby declared that in the case of a non-resident, being a person
engaged in the business of banking, any interest payable by the
permanent establishment in India of such non-resident to the head office or any
permanent establishment or any other part of such non-resident outside India
shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India and shall be chargeable to tax in
addition to any income attributable to the permanent establishment in India and
the permanent establishment in India shall be deemed to be a person
separate and independent of the non-resident person of which it is a
permanent establishment and the provisions of the Act relating to computation
of total income, determination of tax and collection and recovery
shall apply accordingly;”

Thus,

–  The
aforesaid Explanation is applicable to non-resident engaged in business of
banking.

–  Interest
payable by Indian PE to HO, any PE or any other part of such NON-RESIDENT
outside India deemed to accrue or arise in India.

–  Chargeable
to tax in addition to any income attributable to PE in India.

–  PE
in India deemed to be separate and independent of the NON-RESIDENT of which it
is a PE.

–  Provisions
relating to computation of total income, determination of tax and collection
and recovery to apply accordingly.

2.3     Scope of section 195 (1) – Sum Chargeable
to Tax

(i)  Transmission
Corpn of AP Ltd. vs. CIT 239 ITR 587 (SC)

a)  Payment
to non-resident towards purchase of machinery and erection and commissioning
thereof.

b)  Assessee’s
contention – Section 195 applies only in respect of sums comprising of pure
income or profit.

c)  Held
that:                                                  

• TDS applicable not only to amount which
wholly bears income character but also to sums partially comprising of income.

• Obligation to deduct tax limited to
portion of the income chargeable to tax.

• Section 195 is for tentative deduction
of tax and by deducting tax, rights of the parties are not adversely affected.

• 
Rights of parties safeguarded by sections 195(2), 195(3) and 197.

• 
File application to AO – If no application filed, tax to be deducted.

(ii) GE
India Technology Centre (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [2010] 193 Taxman 234 (SC)

The interpretation of the decision of SC
in the Transmission Corporation’s case (supra) was subject matter of litigation
in many cases and the issue once again came up for resolution before the
Supreme Court in this case. The SC held as under:

a)  The
moment there is a remittance out of India, it does not trigger section 195. The
payer is bound to deduct tax only if the sum is chargeable to tax in India read
with section 4, 5 and 9.

b)  Section
195 not only covers amounts which represents pure income payments, but also
covers composite payments which has an element of income embedded in them.

c)  However,
obligation to deduct TDS on such composite payments would be limited to the
appropriate proportion of income forming part of the gross sum.

d)  If
payer is fairly certain, then he can make his own determination as to whether
the tax is deductible at source and if so, what should be the amount thereof,
without approaching the AO.

(iii)       Instruction
No. 2 of 2014 dated 26-2-2014 directing that in a case where the assessee fails
to deduct tax u/s. 195 of the Act, the AO shall determine the appropriate proportion of the
sum chargeable to tax as mentioned in sub-section (1) of section 195 to
ascertain the tax liability on which the deductor shall be deemed to be an
assessee in default u/s. 201 of the Act, and the appropriate proportion of the
sum will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case taking into account
nature of remittances, income component therein or any other fact relevant to
determine such appropriate proportion.

(iv)       Tax
withholding from payment in kind / Exchange etc.

TDS u/s. 195 is required to be deducted.

a)  Kanchanganga
Sea Foods Ltd. vs. CIT 325 ITR 540 (SC).

b)  Biocon
Biopharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. vs. ITO 144 ITD 615 (Bang).

However, in the context of distribution of
prizes to customers wholly in kind (section 194B) and receipt of Certificate of
Development Rights against voluntarily surrender of the land by the landowner,
it has been held in the following cases that TDS provisions are not applicable:

c)  CIT
vs. Hindustan Lever Ltd. (2014) 264 CTR 93 (Kar)

d)  CIT(TDS)
vs. Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagar Palike (ITA No. 94 and 466 of 2015)(Kar).

(v) Payments
by one non-resident to another non-resident inside / outside India

a)  Asia
Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT 85 ITD 478 (Del) – Source of
Income in India, are covered by section 195.

b)  Vodafone
International Holding B.V. vs. UoI [2012] 17 taxmann.com 202 (SC).

(vi)       For
non-compliance by a non-resident of TDS provisions, section 201 not applicable
if recipient pays advance tax.

a)  AP
Power generation Corporation Ltd. vs. ACIT 105 ITD 423.

2.4     Sum Chargeable to Tax – TDS Guidelines

2.5     Chargeability to tax governed by provisions
of Act/DTAA

As
per the provisions of section 90(2), provisions of the Act or DTAA, whichever
is beneficial, prevails.

2.6     Scope of section 195 (1) – Time of
deduction

(i)  Twin
conditions for attracting section 195

– For
payer – credit or payment of income

–  For
payee – Sum chargeable to tax in India

(ii) On
credit or payment, whichever is earlier

–  CIT
vs. Toshoku Ltd. [1980] 125 ITR 525 (SC);

–  United
Breweries Ltd. vs. ACIT [1995] 211 ITR 256 (Kar);

–  Flakt
(India) Ltd. [2004] 139 Taxman 238 (AAR).

–  Broadcom
India Research (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2015] 55 taxmann.com 456 (Bang.).

(iii)       Merely
on the basis of a book entry passed by the payer no income accrues to the
non-resident recipient

–  ITO
vs. Pipavav Shipyard Ltd. Mumbai ITAT – [2014] 42 taxmann.com 159 (Mum-Trib).

(iv)       1^st
Proviso to section 195(1) provides exception for interest payment by Government
or public sector bank or a public financial institution i.e. deduction shall be
made only at the time of payment thereof.

(v) TDS
from Royalties and FTS at the time of payment:

–  DCIT
vs. Uhde Gmbh 54 TTJ 355 (Bom) [India-Germany DTAA]

–  National
Organic Chemical Industries Ltd. vs. DCIT 96 TTJ 765 (Mum) [India-Switzerland
and India-USA DTAA]

(vi)       When
FEMA/RBI approval awaited,

–  United
Breweries Ltd. vs. ACIT 211 ITR 256 – Liability at the time of credit in
the books even if approval received later on.

–  ACIT
vs. Motor Industries Ltd. 249 ITR 141 – It was held that the assessee was
not liable to interest u/s. 201(1A) since it was not obliged to deduct tax at source in respect of
amounts credited in its books for period when agreement was not in force as
foreign collaborator would have got a right to enforce its right to receive
payment only on conclusion of said agreement, (which was pending for approval).

(vii) TDS liability u/s. 195 when
adjustment of amount payable to a non-resident against dues i.e. when no
payment no credit.

–  J.
B. Boda & Co. (P.) Ltd. vs. CBDT 223 ITR 271

–  An
adjustment of the amount payable to the non-resident or deduction thereof by
the non-resident from the amounts due to the resident-payer (of the income)
would fall to be considered under “any other mode”. Such adjustment
or deduction also is equivalent to actual payment. Commercial transactions very
often take place in the aforesaid manner and the provisions of section 195
cannot be sought to be defeated by contending that an adjustment or deduction
of the amounts payable to the non-resident cannot be considered as actual
payment. Raymond Ltd. [2003] 86 ITD 791 (Mum).

(viii)
Dividend is declared but not paid pending RBI approval, then the same accrues
in the year of payment Pfizer Corporation vs. CIT (2003) 259 ITR 391 (Bom).

(ix) If no income accrues to non-resident
although accounting entry incorporating a liability is passed,
no liability for TDS. United Breweries Ltd. vs. ACIT 211 ITR 256.

(x) Payee should be ascertainable. IDBI
vs. ITO 107 ITD 45 (Mum).

(xi) Time of Deduction from the point of
view of the payer and not payee. Relevant in cases where one of them maintain
the books on cash basis and the other on accrual basis – C. J. International
Hotels Ltd. vs ITO TDS 91 TTJ (Del) 318.

2.7     Section 195(1) – Rates in force

(i)   Section
2(37A)(iii) provides in respect of Rates in Force for the purposes of section
195.

(ii)  Circular
728 dtd. 30-10-1995 – Rate in force for remittance to countries with DTAA.

(iii) Circular
740 dtd. 17-04-1996 – Taxability of interest remitted by branches of banks to
HO situated abroad.

(iv) No
surcharge and education cess to be added to Treaty rates.

–  DIC
Asia Pacific Pte Ltd. vs. ADIT IT 22 taxmann.com 310.

–   Sunil
V. Motiani vs. ITO IT 33 taxmann.com 252;

–  DDIT
vs. Serum Institute of India Ltd. [2015] 56 taxmann.com 1 (Pune Trib.).

(v)  Section
44DA read with 115A – Special provision for computing income by way of
royalties etc. in case of non-residents.

(vi) Section
44B – Non-resident in shipping business (7.5% Deemed Profit Rate [DPR])

(vii)      Section
44BB – Non-resident’s business of prospecting etc. of mineral oil (10% DPR)

(viii)     Section
44BBB – Non-resident civil construction business in certain turnkey power
projects (10% DPR)

(ix) Presumptive
provisions (44B, 44BB, 44BBB etc) – Section 195 applicable. Frontier
Offshore Exploration (India) Ltd vs. DCIT 13 ITR (T) 168 (Chennai).

(x)  Section
294 of the Act provides that if on the 1^st day of April in any
assessment year provision has not yet been made by a Central Act for the
charging of income-tax for that assessment year, the provision of the
Income-tax Act shall nevertheless have effect until such provision is so made
as if the provision in force in the preceding assessment year or the provision
proposed in the Bill then before Parliament, whichever is more favourable to
the assessee, were actually in force.

2.8     Section 195(1) – Sum Chargeable to
tax-Exchange Rate Applicable

(i)   Rule
26 provides for rate of exchange for the purpose of TDS on Income payable in
foreign currency

(ii)  TDS
to be deducted on income payable in foreign currency.

–   Value
of rupee shall be SBI TT buying rate.

–   on
the date on which tax is required to be deducted.

(iii) Where
rate of exchange on date of remittance differs from exchange rate on date of
credit, no TDS to be deducted on exchange rate difference. Sandvik Asia Ltd
vs. JCIT 49 SOT 554 (Pune).

3.  Section 94A
– Notified Jurisdictional Areas

(i)   Section
94A(5) – Special measures in respect of transactions with persons located in
notified jurisdictional area

‘(5) Notwithstanding
anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, where any person
located in a notified jurisdictional area is entitled to receive any sum or
income or amount on which tax is deductible under Chapter XVII-B, the tax
shall be deducted at the highest of the following rates, namely:-

(a) at the rate or rates in force;

(b) at the rate specified in the relevant
provisions of this Act;

(c) at the rate of thirty
per cent.’

(ii)  Notification
No. 86/2013 [F. NO. 504/05/2003-FTD-I]/SO 3307(E), Dated 1-11-2013 – Cyprus
Notified.

(iii) Validity
of the notification upheld by the High Court of Madras in T. Rajkumar vs.
Union of India [2016] 68 taxmann.com 182 (Madras).

(iv) The
notification of Cyprus u/s 94A as a notified jurisdictional area for lack of
effective exchange of information, has been rescinded with effect from
1.11.2013 [Notification No. 114/2016 dated 14.12.2016].

4.
Grossing up of tax (195A)

(i)
Section 195A – Income payable “net of tax”

“In
a case other than that referred to in sub-section (1A) of section 192, where
under an agreement or other arrangement, the tax chargeable on any income
referred to in the foregoing provisions of this Chapter is to be borne by
the person by whom the income is payable, then, for the purposes of deduction
of tax under those provisions such income shall be increased to such
amount as would, after deduction of tax thereon at the rates
in force for the financial year in which such income is payable, be
equal to the net amount payable under such agreement or arrangement.”

(ii)  TDS Certificate to be issued even in case of
Grossing up – Circular 785 dt. 24.11.1999.

(iii) Absence of the words “tax to
be borne by the payer” in case of net of tax payment contracts by conduct –
Grossing up required. CIT vs. Barium Chemicals Ltd. [1989] 175 ITR 243 (AP).

(iv)
Section 195A envisages multiple grossing-up. For eg. amount payable to
non-resident is 100 and TDS rate is 10%; Gross amount for TDS purpose would be
111.11 (100*100/90)

(v)
No multiple grossing-up in case of presumptive tax u/s. 44BB. CIT vs. ONGC
[2003] 264 ITR 340 (Uttaranchal).

(vi)
Exemption from grossing-up u/s.10(6BB) – Aircraft and aircraft engine lease
rentals.

(vii)
Section 192(1A) – Tax on non-monetary perquisite – Not covered by section 195A.

Conclusion

In
this part of the Article, we have attempted to highlight various issues
relating to section 195(1), 195A and section 90(4) relating to TDS from
payments to non-residents.

In
the subsequent parts of the Article, we will deal with the other parts of
section 195 and other aspects thereof.