NEULAND LABORATORIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 823/HYD/2017Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 July 2021AY 2012-137 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found no merit in the PCIT's order. It held that overseas commission payments are not taxable in India if services are rendered outside India, and the AO's assessment was not erroneous. The Tribunal also found that the PCIT failed to demonstrate any abnormal trends or errors in the AO's verification of income and expenditure.

What were the facts?

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) invoked Section 263 powers, deeming the Assessing Officer's (AO) assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The PCIT raised two issues: the AO's failure to examine overseas commission payments and the AO's acceptance of the assessee's income/expenditure without sufficient verification.

What were the issues?

Whether the PCIT was justified in revising the assessment order under Section 263 based on the AO's handling of overseas commission payments and income/expenditure verification.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD ‘ B ‘ BENCH, HYDERABAD.

For Appellant: Shri Ch.Venkatesh for Shri M.V

Shri Neuland Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad. PAN AAACN 9531E …..Appellant. Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 16(1), Hyderabad. …..Respondent. Appellant By : Shri Ch.Venkatesh for Shri M.V. Anil Kumar. Respondent By : Shri B. Balakrishna (D.R.) Date of Hearing : 10.06.2021. Date of Pronouncement : 12.07.2021. O R D E R Per Shri S.S. Godara, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for Asst. Year 2012-13 arises from the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad’s order dt.27.03.2017 in proceedings under section 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

We notice at the outset with the able assistance of two parties that the PCIT has treated the regular assessment in issue dt.31.10.2014 framed as an erroneous one causing prejudice to interest of revenue on the following twin counts :

3.

Learned PCIT thereafter rejected the assessee's explanation supporting the impugned assessment followed by his directions to the Assessing Officer to frame on afresh after duly examining the said twin issues as per law.

4.

The Revenue vehemently contended in support of the PCIT directions that the Assessing Officer had failed to carry out the necessary enquiry(ies) which rendered his regular assessment as erroneous one causing prejudice to interest of revenue. 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival contentions against and in support of the impugned section 263 revision directions. We find no merit to sustain the learned PCIT’s order under challenge. This assessee is admittedly engaged in manufacturing and trading of bulk drugs and intermediateries for oversees markets. There is no material before us which could indicate that the assessee's overseas agents had rendered any of their services in India so as to be exigible to both Income Tax as well as Chapter XVII provisions. We thus are of the view that the mere fact that the Assessing Officer having not India, is not fatal his view for the assessee's claim nor does it render the impugned assessment as an erroneous causing prejudice to the interest of Revenue; simultaneously, as per hon'ble apex court’s landmark decision in Malabar Industrial Co. Vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC) ; Case law CIT Vs. Faizan Shoes P. Ltd. (2014) 48 taxmann.com 48 (Mad) and DCIT Vs. Welspun Corporation Ltd. 77 taxmann.com 165 (Ahd) hold that such overseas commission payments in absence of any services having being rendered in India, do not attract TDS mechanism under Chapter XVII of the Act since not taxable in recipients’ hands. Coupled with this, so far as the Revenue’s stand that the Assessing Officer had failed to verify the assessee's commission payment, we make it clear that the impugned assessment has been framed on 31.10.2014 i.e. much before Expln. 2 to section 263 of the Act inserted vide Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 1.6.2015. We further wish to clarify that the Pr. CIT has also not invoked

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →