MAHARASHTRA SEAMLESS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 6(1), NEW DELHI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the payments for online information subscription and reimbursement of travel expenses for pre-shipment inspection do not constitute technical services. Furthermore, since the assessee earned no exempt income, no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted.
What were the facts?
The assessee company challenged the CIT(A)'s order confirming additions made by the AO for legal and professional charges and disallowance under Section 14A. The AO disallowed payments to foreign entities for alleged technical services and also disallowed expenses related to exempt income.
What were the issues?
Whether payments for online information subscription and pre-shipment inspection constitute technical services attracting disallowance under Section 40(a)(i). Whether disallowance under Section 14A is permissible when no exempt income is earned.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Amit ShuklaDr. B. R. R. Kumar
Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-20, New Delhi dated 06.03.2018.
Following grounds have been raised by the assessee:
“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] is bad both in the eye of law and on facts.
2(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.8,49,814/- made by the Ld. AO on account of legal and professional charges under section 40(a)(i) of the Act.
(ii) That the disallowance has been confirmed holding the payment to be fee for technical services, 2 Maharashtra Seamless Ltd. misinterpreting the provision of section 9 as well as that of the DTAA between India and USA.
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the disallowance of an amount of Rs.9,59,430/- made by the AO by invoking the provision of Rule 8D under section 14A of the Act.
4. That the disallowance has been confirmed despite the fact that own funds of the assessee are more than the investment made.
5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the disallowance despite the fact that no expenditure has been incurred by the assessee in relation to the exempt income earned.”
The assessee filed return of income on 20.09.2011 declaring income of Rs.446,16,34,115/-. The assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of Seamless, ERW Pipes & Tubes and Wind Power Generation and trading of Pipes & Tubes.
Legal and Professional Charges:
The AO observed that the assessee has not deducted TDS on the payments made in foreign currency to the entities namely, Asian Metals Ltd., China and SM International Germany. The AO held that the payments for the “services” are in the nature of managerial and technical services covered under provisions of Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It was submitted before us that these payments are not chargeable to tax and filed all the supporting evidences with respect to such payments before the AO and the same are also placed in the paper book. Copy of certificate given by a 3 Maharashtra Seamless Ltd. Chartered Accountant in form no. 15CB along with the information by the assessee in form no. 15CA as required to be filed before making any foreign currency remittance were furnished before the Assessing Officer and are also placed in the paper book. It was submitted that one payment of Rs.52,560/- has been made to subscribe for information online for Iron & Steel prices from China. The subscription was paid earlier for two years. It is a renewal of subscription and claimed in the A.Y. 2009-10 and A.Y. 2010-11 which was accepted by the revenue. The copy of the party’s invoice and payment advice of HDFC bank have been perused. On examination of the facts and evidences before us, we hold that this cannot be treated u/s 40(a)(ia).
With regard to reimbursement of travelling expenses from the Germany based company, the accounts have been reimbursed by the vendor in connection with the visit of the employees with regard to examination of the shipment consisting of rolled coils, non-alloy steel rolls at supplier’s premises.
The ld. CIT(A) held that the amounts have been reimbursed in connection with examination of quality, quantity and weight whether in conformity with the contract or invoice and held that such inspection and examination services are technical services provided. The total amount thus reimbursed was Rs.7.63 lacs. We find that the inspection and examination of the goods before shipment is a common practice and it cannot be treated as a technical service. The inspection with regard to quality, quantity and weight of the product pre- 4 Maharashtra Seamless Ltd. shipment of rolling coils, non-alloy steel rolls cannot be treated as technical and managerial services as per the provisions of the DTAA and Section 9(1) of the I.T. Act.
Keeping in view, the entire peculiar facts of the instant case, we hold that decision of the ld. CIT(A) cannot be affirmed on this ground.
Disallowance u/s 14A:
The assessee company has not earned any exempt income during the year under reference hence keeping in view the judgment in the case Cheminvest Ltd. Vs. ITO (Delhi HC), no disallowance is called for u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 14/02/2022.
More judgments on Section 40(a)(i)
- M/S American Express Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs The Jt DIT (It)1(1), MumbaiITA 9414/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2000-2001
- DDIT(It)- 1(1), Mumbai vs M/S. American Express Bank Ltd., MumbaiITA 5667/MUM/2004[2000-01]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2000-01
- Eurofins Peenya Resources Private Limited… vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 1116/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- Azure Green Tech Private Limited, Delhi vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle…ITA 6199/DEL/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2026AY 2021-22
- Azure Green Tech Private Limited, Delhi vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle…ITA 6198/DEL/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Arka Business Solutions vs. Principal Commissioner Of CustomsTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026