ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), AHMEDABAD vs. INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

ITA 1842/AHD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 February 2026AY 2016-17Bench: MS. SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE (Judicial Member), SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA (Accountant Member)27 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for an earlier year. It was held that commission paid to non-resident agents for services rendered entirely outside India is not taxable in India, negating the need for TDS deduction.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting disallowances made under Section 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of TDS on commission paid to non-resident agents. The CIT(A) held that services were rendered outside India, thus not taxable in India.

What were the issues?

Whether commission paid to non-resident agents for services rendered outside India is taxable in India, and consequently, whether TDS is required to be deducted under Section 195.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(a)(i),Section 195,Section 5(2)(b),Section 9(1)(i)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(17)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, “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

For Appellant: Shri Sher Singh, CIT (DR)
For Respondent: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &, Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, AR
Hearing: 07.01.2026Pronounced: 24.02.2026

PER MS. SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER :

-

This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Ahmedabad-13 [hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)" for short] dated 12.08.2024, under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short], for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds:-

“1) Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the upward adjustment of Rs 1,27,16,929/-made by the TPO, by applying the ra

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 40(a)(i)

All 2,009 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40(a)(i) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →