ACIT, CIRCLE-3(2), AHMEDABAD vs. APEX DYE STUFF INDUSTRIES, AHMEDABAD
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source under Section 195 as the foreign commission payments were not taxable in India. The CBDT circular relied upon by the AO was also noted to have been withdrawn.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer disallowed foreign commission expenses of Rs. 21,22,061/- under Section 40(a)(ia) for failure to deduct TDS. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, holding that TDS was not applicable on payments to foreign parties not having a presence in India.
What were the issues?
Whether TDS was deductible on foreign commission payments to parties not having a presence in India, and consequently, whether the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was justified.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)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.
- GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT663 citing327 ITR 456 · 2010 · SC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH
Before: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed
आदेश/ORDER PER : SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
This is an appeal filed against the order dated 24-07- 2018 passed by ld. CIT(A)-3 for assessment year 2012-13.
The grounds of appeal are as under:-
Page No. 2 ACIT vs. Apex Dye Stuff Industries
“a) The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,55,717/- made by Assessing Officer on account of disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the act. b) On the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. c) It is, therefore, prayed that the order of ld. CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.”
The assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of fertilizers, chemical and paints during the year under consideration. The return of income was filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 on 26-07-2012 declaring total income of Rs. 65,14,590/-. While passing the assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act on 03-11-2024, the total income was determined at Rs. 67,46,150/- after making the disallowances of expenditure u/s. 40(a)(ia) of Rs. 1,19,341/- and disallowances of personal expenses of Rs. 1,10,290/-. The CIT(A) vide order dated 23-09-2015 dismissed the appeal of the assessee as against the issue of disallowance of expenditure u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Subsequently, it was observed from Schedule L of the Profit and Loss Account by the Assessing Officer that the assessee had deposited an amount of Rs. 21,22,061/- in profit and loss account on account of foreign commissions expenses for the year under consideration. The said commission was paid to four parties without deducting the TDS and failure to deduct TDS attracts the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) under which any sum payable to a foreign company on which tax is deductable at source under which chapter XVII-B and such tax has not been deducted was required to be disallowed. After obtaining the approval the assessee’s case Page No. 3 ACIT vs. Apex Dye Stuff Industries was reopened and notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 29-11-2016 which was duly served. In response to the said notice, the assessee did not file revised return of income. During the assessment proceedings, the Authorized Representative of the assessee attended the proceedings and submitted the details. After taking cognizance of the said details and the submissions, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 21,22,061/- and disallowed the commissions expenses u/s. 40(a)(ia) on the ground that as per clarification made by CBDT vide Circular dated 22-10-2009 for applicability of the provisions of section 195(2) regarding commission payments to foreign party, the assessee is liable to deduct tax at source on the payment credited in the foreign parties account.
Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee.
The ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,55,717/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance made u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The ld. Departmental Representative further submitted that the CIT(A) has not appreciated the clarification made by CBDT vide Instruction No. 7/2009 dated 22-12-2009 as the assessee has paid commission to the foreign parties and he is required to deduct tax at source. Thus, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the order of the CIT(A) is not justified.
The Authorized Representative relied upon the order of the CIT(A) and further submitted that the assessee’s statutory liability on the part of the Page No. 4 ACIT vs. Apex Dye Stuff Industries assessee to deduct tax at source u/s. 195 of the Act as payment of commission was made to foreign nationals operating from foreign territories and the recipients do not have any office, branch or another other establishment in India. There was no liability on the part of the assessee to deduct income tax at source u/s. 195 and the ld. Authorized Representative relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of G. E. India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. 327 ITR 456.
We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. The contention of the ld. Departmental Representative that the assessee is liable to pay/deduct tax at source as per section 195 appears to be not correct as the CBDT has withdrawn, the circular No. 7 of 2009 dated 22-11-2009. The CIT(A) has rightly taken the consistent view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the light of decision of G. E. India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. (supra) as the assessee is not liable to deduct tax at source as the payments are not taxable in India. As in the present case, the payment of foreign commission is not taxable in India and therefore section 195 is not applicable. There is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A).
In result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 07-02-2024 Sd/- Sd/- (WASEEM AHMED) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Page No. 5 ACIT vs. Apex Dye Stuff Industries Ahmedabad : Dated 07/02/2024 आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से,
उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs M/S. Excel Chemicals India Pvt. Limited…Ahmedabad3 Aug 2022Dismissed
Also relies on GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
The Tribunal held that for Section 195 to apply, the payment must have an element of income taxable in India. Since the commission paid to non-resident agents was not taxable in India, the assessee was not obligated to d...
- The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Baroda vs Inox India Private Ltd., VadodaraAhmedabad23 Mar 2022Dismissed
Also relies on GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by its own earlier decisions in the assessee's own case. It was found that the commission payments were not taxable in India in the hands of the non-resident recipients.
- DCIT 8(2)(1), Mumbai vs Shamrock Pharmachemi P. Ltd., MumbaiMumbai11 Nov 2020Dismissed
Also relies on GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
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...
- The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax… vs Indo Colchem Ltd., AhmedabadAhmedabad8 May 2019Dismissed
Also relies on GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the services were rendered outside India and income did not accrue or arise in India, thus no TDS obligation arose. Therefore, the disallowances were not justified.
- The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs Indo Colchem Pvt. Ltd., AhmedabadAhmedabad30 Apr 2019Dismissed
Also relies on GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
The Tribunal held that commission payments to non-residents were not taxable in India. Therefore, the assessee was not obligated to deduct tax at source, and the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was incorrect.
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
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