AMD sees AI chip market exceeding $500 billion by 2028
Live Events
Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) Chief Executive Lisa Su has said that the chipmaker sees the artificial intelligence processor market topping $500 billion by 2028.The Silicon Valley company said the market is likely to grow at over 60 per cent annually to exceed USD 500 billion, from being a $45 billion opportunity in 2023.Addressing the company's flagship Advancing AI 2025 conference here on Thursday, Su said the growth will be led by the inferencing work, which is a shift from training."What I can tell you based on everything that we see today is that that number is going to be exceeding USD 500 billion by 2028," Su said.The company unveiled the "MI350 Series GPUs (graphic processing units)" at the flagship event along with a host of other products.Su said opting for the newly launched chips may be beneficial for customers, claiming that they issue up to 40 per cent more tokens per dollar.It can be noted that Nvidia is generally considered an entrenched player in the GPUs market, and the demand for its chips is very high. There are waiting periods as well for the chips.In her address, Su said that seven of the 10 largest AI customers, including the largest Indian telco Reliance Jio, are deploying AMD Instinct Accelerators at present.AMD had last year announced the MI350 and announced that the same offering, which has displayed a four-times increase in compute as compared to the previous generation, is in production now and will be commercially available from the third quarter onwards.During her address, Su spoke with a slew of clients and partners, including OpenAI chief executive Sam Altman , and senior executives from other companies like Meta, Microsoft and Oracle Su said the company is focused on open architecture as a fundamental tenet in its approach to serving the AI world, an aspect which is different from the approach adopted by Nvidia.The company also launched a developer cloud access programme, under which it will grant access to the developer community to try and use its offerings first-hand.Su said the company believes that innovation happens faster when something is thrown open for the developers, and backed it up by citing examples from history as well.It also showcased the 'Helios AI Rack Scale' solution, a fully integrated AI platform and announced that the same will be available from the next year onwards.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
31 minutes ago
- Economic Times
NRI wins capital gains tax case in Delhi high court regarding sale of Rs 2 crore property despite Rs 46 lakh tax demand notice
ET Online (Representative image) Delhi High Court: NRI wins Rs 2 crore property sale capital gains tax case despite buyer filing wrong TDS form An non-resident Indian (NRI) residing in the United States of America had to go through a very challenging time when he sold a property in Pune for Rs 2 crore and followed the laid down procedure. The problem started when the buyer deducted 20% TDS on this property transaction and deposited it with the income tax department using a wrong TDS form. As a result of this, the TDS amount simply failed to show up in the NRI's AIS. Without the TDS amount showing up in the AIS, the NRI could not claim it while filing Income Tax Return (ITR), resulting in a financial loss of Rs 18.68 lakh (20% TDS). Moreover, the income tax department, unaware about this problem, issued a tax demand notice of Rs 46 lakh to this NRI as they deemed he sold the property and did not pay capital gains tax on it. The property buyer, however, claimed that he deposited the 20% TDS money with the income tax department and also showed a bank challan receipt for the same. To give you a background context of this problem the property buyer deposited the 20% TDS in Form 26QB which relates to Indian residents. Since the property seller was NRI, the property buyer should have used Form 27Q to deposit the deducted 20% TDS. This wrong selection of the form by the property buyer was the source of all problems for the NRI. As soon as this issue was identified the property buyer went to the bank to correct the TDS form. However, the bank was working on this issue and taking its time to process the correction request. But the matter did not end here. The Income tax department said they cannot fix this issue by themselves as they need to follow the rules and procedure which involves the property buyer giving consent, an indemnity bond and other documents. There were dual challenges for this NRI - on one hand he was facing a tax demand of Rs 46 lakh and on the other hand he could not claim the TDS credit of Rs 18 lakh (20% TDS) as this was not showing up in his AIS. Hence the NRI approached the legal authority and ultimately Delhi High Court for Delhi High Court on May 27, 2025 ordered the income tax department to make the full 20% TDS credit reflect under the NRI's PAN with effect from the date it was deposited by the property buyer. The court also directed the income tax department to compute the amount of the tax refund that may be due to the NRI in accordance with below to understand the facts of this case and why the Delhi High Court ordered the income tax department to fix this issue and compute the tax refund amount that may be due to this NRI. How did this case start? According to the order of the Delhi High Court dated May 27, 2025, here is a timeline of events: 1998: A NRI person residing in the United States of America (USA) purchased a property in Pune. A NRI person residing in the United States of America (USA) purchased a property in Pune. March 18, 2015: A doctor expressed his interest in buying this Pune property from this NRI for a total sale consideration of Rs 2 crore. The NRI accepted the offer. A doctor expressed his interest in buying this Pune property from this NRI for a total sale consideration of Rs 2 crore. The NRI accepted the offer. September5, 2015 : The property buyer informed the NRI that he needs to deduct 20% TDS on this Rs 2 crore property sale. So the buyer will deduct Rs 18.68 lakh (18,68,177) and give the NRI Rs1.8 crore (1,81,31,823). The NRI agreed to this. : The property buyer informed the NRI that he needs to deduct 20% TDS on this Rs 2 crore property sale. So the buyer will deduct Rs 18.68 lakh (18,68,177) and give the NRI Rs1.8 crore (1,81,31,823). The NRI agreed to this. October 27, 2015: The NRI computed his income tax liability as Rs 1.9 lakh (1,91,780) and deposited the same as advance tax. He then repatriated the balance amount of property sale proceeds to the USA. He did not file an income tax return (ITR) for that year. The NRI computed his income tax liability as Rs 1.9 lakh (1,91,780) and deposited the same as advance tax. He then repatriated the balance amount of property sale proceeds to the USA. He did not file an income tax return (ITR) for that year. March 4, 2023: An Income tax officer issued a notice under Section 148(b) to this NRI on the basis of the information available that the NRI had sold a property, which according to the officer, suggested that the petitioner's income had escaped assessment. An Income tax officer issued a notice under Section 148(b) to this NRI on the basis of the information available that the NRI had sold a property, which according to the officer, suggested that the petitioner's income had escaped assessment. April 15, 2023: The NRI person furnished all details and even showed his advance tax receipt, but the tax officer did not accept the same. This officer then proceeded to pass an order under Section 148A(d) holding that it is a fit case for issuance of notice under Section 148. The NRI person furnished all details and even showed his advance tax receipt, but the tax officer did not accept the same. This officer then proceeded to pass an order under Section 148A(d) holding that it is a fit case for issuance of notice under Section 148. October 30, 2024: The income tax officer issued another notice under Section 142 seeking furnishing of certain documents. The NRI person responded to the same and gave the details. The income tax officer issued another notice under Section 142 seeking furnishing of certain documents. The NRI person responded to the same and gave the details. March 4, 2025: The income tax officer issued a proposed assessment order by accepting the ITR filed by the NRI in response to the earlier notice. The tax officer also issued a computation sheet reflecting a tax demand of Rs 46 lakh (46, 81, 013). He issued another notice showing this tax demand amount. The tax officer based on this notice also initiated penalty proceedings under Section 270A. The income tax officer issued a proposed assessment order by accepting the ITR filed by the NRI in response to the earlier notice. The tax officer also issued a computation sheet reflecting a tax demand of Rs 46 lakh (46, 81, 013). He issued another notice showing this tax demand amount. The tax officer based on this notice also initiated penalty proceedings under Section 270A. March 2025: The NRI filed a detailed reply pointing out that the entire tax liability had been discharged, but the credit of the same was not effected on account of TDS returns filed under Form 26QB instead of Form 27Q. The NRI directly filed an appeal against this order in the Delhi High Court. What did the Income Tax Department say in the Delhi High Court? Lawyers representing the Income Tax Department said in the Delhi High Court:'The counsel appearing for the Revenue submits that the Income Tax Department has been unable to correct the error, as under the Standard Operating Procedure [SOP], the consent of the buyers is required, along with an indemnity bond and other documents,' the reply given to the high court. Delhi High Court asks the tax department why buyers' consent is required for correcting TDS form? When the Delhi High Court asked the tax department why they need buyers' consent for correcting the TDS return form. The lawyers representing the income tax department said:The reply: 'On a pointed query, as to why the buyers' consent would be required, the counsel for the Revenue submits that the same would be necessary in order to obviate any action on the part of the buyers to recover the amount of the TDS that had been deposited. She states that although, there is no dispute as to the deposit of the TDS, but the petitioner's (NRI) case has been withheld only on account of the documents required from the buyers.' Delhi High Court final judgement The Delhi High Court ordered the income tax department to give the full TDS credit of Rs 18 lakh to this NRI and also compute the tax refund amount due to judgement: 'In the peculiar facts of this case, we consider it apposite to direct the Revenue to correct the record and reflect the TDS deposited by the buyers to the petitioner's credit under the return filed in the Form 26QB with effect from the date, the amount was deposited. The Revenue shall further compute the amount of the refund, if any, that may be due to the petitioner in accordance with law. All the orders and communication not in conformity with the aforesaid directions shall be treated as having been set aside. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. The pending application is also disposed of.' To reiterate, the NRI computed the balance of income tax liability at Rs 1.9 lakh (1,91,780) for this Rs 2 crore property sale and deposited the same as advance tax. His AIS was showing this advance tax Income tax department did not dispute this aspect. What is the significance of this case for NRIs? ET Wealth Online has asked various experts about the significance of this case, here's what they said: Gopal Bohra, partner, N.A. Shah LLP, says: 'In this case, the buyer has appropriately deducted the tax at source @20% while making payment to the non-resident seller under section 195, however, wrongly deposited the TDS amount by filling Form 26QB which is applicable where tax is deducted @1% on purchase of property from resident seller. Due to this procedural error committed by the buyer, the non-resident seller's 26AS reflects TDS only @ 1% and balance TDS amount remains unconsumed under PAN of the buyer. Since, there was no loss to the revenue as the buyer has deposited the entire TDS with the government, the High Court has correctly directed the tax department to give credit of the balance TDS amount to the non-resident seller.' Rahul Jain, Partner at Khaitan & Co, says: 'For NRIs selling property in India, this ruling underscores the importance of proactive tax compliance. It is vital to inform the buyer of their non-resident status, ensure that tax is deducted and deposited timely with the government, and that TDS is reported in Form 27Q with correct details (including the TDS amount and PAN of the buyer). If feasible, NRIs may ask the buyers to share the draft form prior to filing for confirmation. NRIs should also ensure to collect Form 16A (TDS certificate), monitor Form 26AS, and file the return in India to claim credit or refund, within statutory timelines. Small lapses can lead to significant complications, so early diligence can help avoid long and costly disputes.' Jain adds: "Income tax law explicitly states that taxes deducted at source and paid to the Central Government by the payor shall be treated as the taxes paid by the recipient. Accordingly, the recipient is legally entitled to claim credit of such taxes deducted and paid. In this instance, the fact that taxes were deducted and paid in India by the buyer (on behalf of the recipient) was undisputed and the issue was strictly limited to procedural lapse on part of the buyer in filing the correct tax form. While the tax department claimed that certain documents and an indemnity bond is required from the buyer as per the internal Standard Operating Procedure to rectify the issue, the High Court exercised its powers of writ and issued the directions to grant the credit." Madhura Samant, Managing Partner, Elarra Law Offices, says: "The Court rightly held there was no statutory power for such a reversal and found the demand and penalty notices to be arbitrary and lacking in reasoned consideration. A buyer's procedural error cannot be allowed to prejudice a compliant seller. This case underscores the importance of balancing procedural compliance with a fair and fact-based evaluation of taxpayer conduct." Samant adds: 'NRIs selling property in India must ensure that the buyer deducts TDS using Form 27Q—not Form 26QB. It is also critical that the buyer has a valid TAN (Tax Deduction Account Number) before deducting TDS, as PAN alone is not sufficient in transactions involving NRIs. Without a TAN, Form 27Q cannot be filed. Additionally, the NRI seller must obtain Form 16A (the TDS Certificate) from the buyer as proof of tax deduction and deposit. Compliance should be double-checked before execution. Even a minor procedural lapse can escalate into significant tax disputes. Proactive oversight and proper documentation are essential to secure rightful tax credit and avoid unnecessary litigation. Legal safeguards start with paperwork. An incorrect form can lead to years of litigation and blocked refunds.' Deepesh Chheda, Partner, Dhruva Advisors: The Delhi High Court prioritized the substance of tax payment over procedural error. Despite the buyers incorrectly filing TDS form, the court recognized that the entire tax liability had been discharged and directed the Revenue to credit the full TDS amount to the NRI, emphasizing that a mere technical lapse should not obstruct rightful credit. This High Court ruling serves as a crucial precedent for NRIs, affirming that substantive tax payment prevails over procedural errors in TDS filings. To prevent similar issues, NRIs must proactively educate their buyers on the correct TDS compliance for non-residents, emphasizing the mandatory use of correct form, and vigilantly verify proper filing to ensure timely credit and avoid protracted dispute.
Hindustan Times
34 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
GNDU to establish Chair in Sikh studies: VC
Guru Nanak Dev University (GNDU) is strengthening its global footprint with a series of academic collaborations and initiatives aimed at promoting research on Guru Nanak's teachings and advancing higher education. Vice-chancellor prof Karamjeet Singh, following a recent international tour, announced that the university is set to establish a Chair of Guru Nanak Dev Sikh Studies on the campus, supported by an endowment exceeding ₹3 crore funded primarily by Punjabi NRIs. The Chair will focus on research related to the spiritual and philosophical teachings of Guru Nanak Dev. During his visit to Uzbekistan, Singh signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with Samarkand State University to foster academic and cultural collaborations commemorating Guru Nanak Dev. In the United States, the plan for the Sikh Studies Chair took shape alongside scholarship programmes for students. In Canada, GNDU engaged with leading universities in British Columbia to explore joint research, faculty exchanges and innovative academic programmes. 'This visit has marked a significant step toward positioning GNDU as a global leader in integrated and future-ready education,' Singh said, highlighting the university's 'student-first' approach and focus on inclusive academic innovation. Addressing employment challenges faced by Indian graduates, the VC emphasised GNDU's initiatives to equip students with entrepreneurial skills. He said that while approximately 30 lakh students graduate annually in India, only 10 lakh secure jobs. To bridge this gap, GNDU is launching entrepreneurship courses and training programmes to help students create their own ventures. The university has also introduced forward-looking programmes in artificial intelligence, robotics, environmental science, design, journalism and business analytics to prepare students for emerging fields, the VC said. 'A rose garden will be established in the courtyard of the university campus. The fountain chowk will be re-design keeping in view the philosophy of Guru Nanak 's teachings,' the VC added.
The Hindu
36 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Bombay HC defers Celebi's appeal against Mumbai Airport's contract termination, awaits Delhi HC ruling
The Bombay High Court on Friday (June 13, 2025) has adjourned till July 10, 2025, the hearing of the petition filed by Celebi NAS Airport Services India Pvt Ltd, a Turkish-Indian joint venture providing ground handling services for airlines at various Indian airports, that has challenged the termination of its services by the Mumbai International Airport Limited (MIAL). The firm that has been providing services at various Indian airports, has faced multiple legal battles in Mumbai, Delhi, Gujarat and Chennai. On Friday, a Division Bench of Justices B. P. Colabawalla and Firdosh Pooniwalla was informed that overall, seven airports in India have cancelled the services of the Turkish airlines services firm and its subsidiaries. Representing the Union government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted to the Bench that the Turkish aviation firm has already filed similar petitions in the Delhi High Court and the Madras High Court seeking relief. 'The Delhi High Court has reserved its order after hearing extensive arguments from both sides. Thus, the Madras High Court has passed an order stating it will await the judgment of the Delhi High Court, since similarly worded arguments are made before Delhi High Court and its findings will have an impact on the issues in all the petitions,' Mr. Mehta told the judges and requested the Bench to consider passing a similar order and defer its proceedings until the Delhi High Court pronounces its verdict. Appearing for Celebi, senior advocate Chetan Kapadia, agreed with the Solicitor General's submission. The Bench considered the request and noted that it will wait for the Delhi High Court's verdict and adjourned the hearing till July 10, 2025. On May 26, 2025, the Bombay High Court restrained MIAL from finalising bids on May 17, to appoint a new agency and replace Çelebi's subsidiary for ground and bridge handling services at Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport. The High Court said that its order will operate until the matter is heard by a regular Bench after the vacation. Celebi moved the Bombay High Court after the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS), under the Ministry of Civil Aviation, revoked its security clearance on the grounds of national security, amid heightened diplomatic tensions between India and Turkey, particularly over Turkey's stand in support of Pakistan during the Operation Sindoor. Celebi has filed three petitions, challenging the Centre's decision to revoke the security clearance and contract termination by the MIAL, terming the termination 'arbitrary' and 'illegal'.
