PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 vs. FERROMATIC MILACRON INDIA PVT. LTD

Revenue is in appeal against the judgement of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 19.04.2018 raising following question for our consideration: “Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 18,80,876/- made on account of Commission paid to no-resident u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act?”

The issue arises in relation to assessment year 2011-12. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had paid payment of Rs. 1.20 crore (rounded off) to non-resident out of the total commission of Rs. 1.49 crores (rounded off) paid during the year. On such commission paid to non-residents, the assessee had not deducted any tax at source. The Assessing Officer therefore, C/TAXAP/1232/2018 ORDER inquired with the assessee, who responded by suggesting that all services were rendered by the non-residents outside India assessee's contention that the non-resident commission agents did not have any permanent establishment in India and the services were also rendered by them outside India. He was of the opinion that the activity of the sale had taken place in India and that therefore the case would fall within section 9(1)(i) of the Act.

The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal on the ground that no part of C/TAXAP/1232/2018 ORDER the income had arisen or accrued in India. The payee was not liable to pay tax at such income. Requirement of TDS

As is well known, section 195 of the Act imposes requirement of deduction of tax at source on any person responsible for paying to a non-resident any sum chargeable under the provisions of the Act. The prime requirement therefore for applicability of the section is that the payment to the non- resident should be a sum chargeable under the provisions of the Act. In other words, the payment is not an income which is chargeable to tax in India. Requirement of deducting tax at source under section 195 of the Act would not arise. This aspect was elaborated by the Supreme Court in case of GE India Technology Center P. Ltd (supra) holding that on mere remittances of an amount to non-resident, duty to deduct tax at source would not arise unless such remittances contains wholly or partly taxable income.

Section 9 of the Act carries the heading “income deemed to accrue or arise in India. Sub-section (1) of section 9 provides that in following incomes, contained in various clauses therein, shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India. Clause (i) of sub section (1) provides that all income accruing or arising, whether directly or indirectly, through or from any business connection in India or through or from any property in India or through or from any asset or source of Income in India or C/TAXAP/1232/2018 ORDER through the transfer of a capital asset situate in India shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India.

In the present case, as noted, admitted facts are that the non- resident agents appointed by the assessee for procuring export orders do not have permanent establishment in India. Their agents are situated outside India. Their activities as commission agents are being carried out outside India. The Tribunal therefore correctly held that there was no liability on the assessee to deduct tax at source. Merely because a portion of the sale to the overseas purchasers took place in India, would not change situation vis a vis the commission agents.

In the result, Tax Appeal is dismissed. (AKIL KURESHI, J) (B.N. KARIA, J) JYOTI V. JANI