ACIT., CIRCLE-1, AGRA vs. M/S DAWAR FOODWEAR INDUSTRIES, , AGRA
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The CIT(A) deleted the disallowances, relying on judicial precedents that foreign agents without a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India did not necessitate TDS deduction. For sample charges, the CIT(A) considered the amendment to Section 9 by the Finance Act, 2010, was not yet in statute at the time of payment.
What were the facts?
The revenue appealed the deletion of disallowances made by the Assessing Officer (AO) for foreign commission payments and sample/development charges. The AO had disallowed these payments under Section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, treating them as income subject to TDS for non-resident entities.
What were the issues?
Whether disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) is applicable for foreign commission payments and sample development charges to non-resident entities without a PE in India, and if the amendment to Section 9 by the Finance Act, 2010 impacts the requirement of TDS for sample charges.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show listHide 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.
- CIT v. Faizan Shoes (P.) Ltd.139 citing48 Taxmann.com 48 · 2014 · HC
- CIT(A) v. Eon Technology Pvt. Ltd.58 citing343 ITR 366 · 2012 · HC
- 39 Taxmann.com 263 citing39 Taxmann.com 26
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “DB” BENCH, AGRA
Before: HON’BLE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
(िनधा�रणवष� / Assessment Year:2010-11) बनाम/ ACIT-Circle-1, M/s. Dawar Footwear Industries Agra. 53, T.P. Nagar, Agra. Vs. �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AAAFD-6003-E (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) : (� थ� / Respondent) अपीलाथ�कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. CIT-DR � थ�कीओरसे/Respondent by : Sh. Rajendra Sharma, Adv. – Ld. AR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 19-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeals by revenue for Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11 arises out of an order passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Agra [CIT(A)] on 31-03-2015 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 18-03- 2013. Both sides made vehement arguments. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, the appeal is disposed- off as under. The sole grievance of the revenue is deletion of disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) against foreign commission payments and sample and development charges as paid by the assessee to non- resident entities. The assessee derived income from manufacturing and trading of footwear.
The assessee paid commission to non-resident agents for export orders. No tax was deducted against the same on the ground that the payment was not for managerial and technical services. No part of services was rendered in India. None of the payee was stated to be having any permanent establishment in India. However, Ld. AO made disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) for Rs.288.47 Lacs. The assessee also paid sample design development expenses to foreign parties which was similarly disallowed for Rs.36.15 Lacs.
The Ld. CIT(A), inter-alia, relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of EON Technology Pvt. Ltd. (343 ITR 366) as well as the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Faizan Shoes Pvt. Ltd. (48 Taxmann.com 48) to hold that where foreign agents had no PE in India, no part of their services would be rendered in India and therefore, there would be no obligation to deduct TDS u/s 195. On the issue of sample charges, it was held that when the payment was made, the amendment made below Sec.9 by Finance Act, 2010 was not in statute and therefore, there was impossibility of performance as held by Agra bench of Tribunal in the case of Metro & Metro (39 Taxmann.com26).Accordingly, the impugned disallowances were deleted against which the revenue is in further appeal before us.
It could very well be seen that the adjudication of Ld. CIT(A) is based on binding judicial precedents. No contrary decision has been shown to us. This being the case, we confirm impugned order, on both the issues.
The appeal stands dismissed.
Order pronounced u/r 34(4) of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- DCIT 8(2)(1), Mumbai vs Shamrock Pharmachemi P. Ltd., MumbaiMumbai11 Nov 2020Dismissed
Also relies on CIT(A) v. Eon Technology Pvt. Ltd. and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that since the commission payments were made to non-residents for services rendered outside India, and no part of the income was chargeable to tax in India, there was no obligation to deduct tax at sour...
- DCIT, C-4, Jaipur vs M/S. Jlc Electromet Pvt. Ltd., JaipurJaipur12 Apr 2022Dismissed
Also relies on CIT(A) v. Eon Technology Pvt. Ltd. and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that since the payments were made for services rendered and expenses incurred outside India, they were not chargeable to tax in India. Consequently, there was no liability to deduct tax at source under ...
- ACIT -25(2), Mumbai vs M/S. Gepach International, MumbaiMumbai15 Sept 2020Dismissed
Also relies on CIT(A) v. Eon Technology Pvt. Ltd. and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the payments were reimbursement of expenses and commission, not fees for technical services, and thus not chargeable to tax in India. Therefore, Section 195 was not attracted, and the disallowance ...
- DCIT, New Delhi vs M/S. Sterling Ornaments (P) Ltd., New DelhiDelhi27 Jun 2018Dismissed
Also relies on CIT(A) v. Eon Technology Pvt. Ltd. and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source on commission payments made to non-resident agents for services rendered outside India. Consequently, the disallowance made by the AO was deleted...
- ITO 3(3)2, Mumbai vs Shamrock Pharmachemi P.Ltd, MumbaiMumbai30 May 2019Partly Allowed
Also relies on CIT(A) v. Eon Technology Pvt. Ltd. and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in accepting additional evidence without allowing the AO an opportunity to examine it, violating principles of natural justice and Rule 46A(3). The issue regarding Section 68 was r...
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
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026