AL HAMD AGRO FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD,ALIGARH vs. DC/ACIT, ALIGARH

ITA 63/AGR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 January 2026AY 2020-21Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)7 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the services were rendered outside India by non-residents without a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, the commission income was not taxable in India. Therefore, there was no requirement for the assessee to deduct TDS on these payments, and the disallowance was incorrect.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an exporter of meat, paid commission to non-resident agents for procuring orders outside India. The Assessing Officer disallowed this commission of Rs. 1,85,70,973 due to non-deduction of TDS. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance.

What were the issues?

Whether commission paid to non-resident agents for services rendered outside India, where the income is not taxable in India, requires TDS deduction under the Income-tax Act, 1961, and if its disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) is valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(a)(i),Section 90(2),Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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, AGRA BENCH, AGRA

Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH

Hearing: 18.12.2025Pronounced: 15.01.2026

PER : S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

The assessee has preferred this appeal against the order of learned CIT(Appeals)-3, Gurgaon dated 10.12.2024 u/s. 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short) for the assessment year 2020-

21.2.

Brief facts of the case are, the assessee filed its return of income

for the assessment year 2020-21, declaring income of Rs.45,99,37,860/- on 29.10.2020. Case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. Accordingly, notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer made several additions, including

disallowance of commission paid, but tax no

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 →