DCIT 24(2), MUMBAI vs. UNISYNTH CHEMICALS, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6699/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 June 2016AY 2009-102 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the commission payment was made to an overseas agent with no permanent establishment in India. Therefore, the income was not chargeable to tax in India, and the disallowance was rightly deleted.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowance made under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on commission paid to overseas agents. The AO held that TDS was deductible under Section 195.

What were the issues?

Whether TDS was deductible under Section 195 on commission paid to a non-resident agent whose income was not chargeable to tax in India.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(a)(ia),Section 195

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, MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI G.S. PANNU & SHRI SANJAY GARG

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, A.R
For Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, D.R
Hearing: 07.06.2016Pronounced: 15.06.2016

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

1.

The present appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 27.08.2014 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to assessment year 2009-10.

2.

The sole issue raised by the Revenue in this appeal is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AO) under section 40(a)(ia) for non deduction of TDS on the remittance made by the assessee on account of commission paid to the oversees agents namely Planning Coml Importadora Ltd. Brazil. The AO observed that the assessee was liable to deduct TDS on such payments under section 195 of the Act.

3.

The Ld. CIT(A), however, deleted the disallowance made by the AO observing that the payments were made to the non resident and out of India

2 M/s. Unisynth Chemicals and that no income chargeable to tax under the Indian Income Tax has accrued to the said foreign agent. The payment received by the foreign agent from the assessee was not chargeable to tax in India. He, therefore, relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “GE India Technology Centre (P) Ltd. vs. CIT” (2010) 10 SCC 29 and several other High Courts and Tribunal decisions deleted the disallowance made by the AO. The Revenue, thus, has come in appeal before us.

4.

We have heard the rival contentions and have also gone through the records. Admittedly, the commission payment made by the assessee in this case has been made to oversees agent who has no permanent establishment in India. The income of the foreign agent on this account thus is not chargeable to tax in India. The Ld. CIT(A), relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “GE India Technology Centre (P) Ltd. vs. CIT” (supra) and various other decisions, has, thus, rightly set aside the disallowance made by the AO. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the appeal of the Revenue and the same is therefore dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 15.06.2016.

More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)

All 7,300 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40(a)(ia) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →