ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ALNOOR EXPORTS, NEW DELHI
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 to delete the additions. It ruled that commission paid to foreign agents for procuring export orders is not taxable in India and thus not subject to TDS. The Tribunal also found the increase in preservation charges justified based on business expediency.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed the deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) concerning commission expenses, export promotion expenses, interest expenses, and preservation charges. The AO had disallowed these expenses for non-deduction of TDS or lack of business expediency.
What were the issues?
Whether commission paid to foreign agents for procuring export orders is subject to TDS under Section 195, and whether the increase in preservation charges was justified by business needs.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 195,Section 40(a)(i),Section 9(1)(vii),Section 40A(2)(b)
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.
- Dui- (International Taxation) v. Panalfa Autoelectrik Ltd.35 citing49 Taxmann.com 412 · 2014 · HC
- DIT v. Panalfa Autoelektrik Ltd.29 citing378 ITR 205 · 2014 · HC
- Welspring Universal v. JCIT3 citing153 ITD 496 · 2015 · ITAT
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, [ DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI ]
Before: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD & Dr. B.R.R. KUMAR
storage space in Mumbai is also justified with the increase in processing at Mumbai 4.4.4 Considering the above facts, the written submissions and documentary evidence filed, I am of the view that the genuineness of the extra expenditure of Rs.72,00,000/- is for the purposes of business hence the addition is deleted.”
On careful reading of the observations of the ld. CIT (Appeals) we do not find any valid reason to interfere with the findings of the ld. CIT (Appeals) in deleting the preservation charges disallowed by the Assessing Officer. Ground raised
by the Revenue is rejected.
20. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on : 25/07/2023.
More judgments on Section 195
- Subramanian Aravind, Tuticorin vs Ward 1, TuticorinITA 297/CHNY/2026[2018-2019]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2018-2019
- Gmp Technical Solutions Private Limited… vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, MumbaiITA 6155/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2026AY 2014-15
- M/S. Sarjak Container Lines Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs DCIT, Circle 3(1)(1), MumbaiITA 1791/MUM/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed16 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
- Universal Tractor Holding Llc, Usa vs DCIT, International Taxation Circle…ITA 2216/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: Disposed15 Sept 2026AY 2019-20
- Buttercup Publishing Private Limited, Delhi vs ITO Int Tax. 1(1)(2), DelhiITITA 19/DEL/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed7 Sept 2026AY 2019-20
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026