DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI vs. GEM SPINNERS INDIA LTD., CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) allowed the appeal without independent findings. Therefore, the ITAT remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination, including the existence of a Permanent Establishment in India.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer disallowed commission paid to foreign entities for non-deduction of TDS. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), who allowed the appeal. The Revenue then appealed to the ITAT.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal without independent findings and whether the commission paid to foreign entities was subject to TDS in India.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN
आदेश/ O R D E R
PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
The Revenue filed this appeal against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Chennai in dated 23.08.2017 for assessment year 2009-10.
The Revenue filed an affidavit seeking condonation of one day delay in filing the appeal. Since there was none from the assessee’s side, we heard the DR and condone the delay.
M/s. Gem Spinners (I) Ltd, the assessee, is a manufacturer of cotton yarn and knitted fabric. While making the assessment for assessment year 2009-10, the AO found that the assessee company paid, inter alia, Commission of Rs. 52,90,110/- and sales commission (trading) of Rs. 1,07,53,580/- to foreign entities without deducting TDS and hence he disallowed an aggregate amount of commission of Rs. 1,60,43,690/- u/s. 40(a)(ia). Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) allowed the appeal. Aggrieved, the Revenue filed this appeal.
The DR argued the case on the lines of grounds of appeal and submitted that the CIT(A) recorded the pleadings of the assessee and allowed the appeal without recording is independent findings/conclusions. None was present from the assessee’s side. In the facts and circumstances, we deem it fit to remit these issues back to the AO for a fresh examination as to whether there was a PE in India etc and decide the issues in accordance with law. The AO shall afford adequate opportunity to the assessee and then pass a speaking order.
In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on Monday, the 05th day of March, 2018 at Chennai.
More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)
- Rekha Agarwal, Jaipur vs ITO WD 4(1), JaipurITA 844/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Cdg Petchem Limited, Hyderabad vs ITO, Ward - 1(1), HyderabadITA 1900/HYD/2025[2018-2019]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-2019
- M/S. Shree Laminators Ltd., Kolkata vs DCIT, Circle 4(4), KolkataITA 1534/KOL/2026[2011-2012]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2011-2012
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026