(a) Corborandum & Co. v. CIT

267 ITR 725Reported decision2004#8538 most cited
13

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Judgments citing (a) Corborandum & Co. v. CIT

ACIT CIRCLE-28(1), DELHI vs. SAM OVERSEAS, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 169/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Sr. Advocate
Section 195

…persons for the services rendered outside India cannot be deemed to be income which had either accrued or arose in India. The assessee had also relied upon the following judgments: (a) Corborandum & Co. Vs. CIT [108 ITR 335 (SC)] (b) Ind. Telesoft Pvt. Ltd. [267 ITR 725 (AAR)] 52.4 Thus the core question is whether the services rendered by the commission agents could be regarded as technical service fee as defined in Explanation (2) of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act which reads as under: 9. (1) The following incomes shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India:- ……. (vii) income by way of fees for technical service…

SAM OVERSEAS ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE- 24(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1695/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Sr. Advocate
Section 195

…persons for the services rendered outside India cannot be deemed to be income which had either accrued or arose in India. The assessee had also relied upon the following judgments: (a) Corborandum & Co. Vs. CIT [108 ITR 335 (SC)] (b) Ind. Telesoft Pvt. Ltd. [267 ITR 725 (AAR)] 52.4 Thus the core question is whether the services rendered by the commission agents could be regarded as technical service fee as defined in Explanation (2) of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act which reads as under: 9. (1) The following incomes shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India:- ……. (vii) income by way of fees for technical service…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. ISHMAN INTERNATIONAL, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5880/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Sh. Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2010-11

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 195Section 40Section 9

…permanent place of business place In India. The Commission was remitted directly to this Agent directly outside India and not received by it or on it behalf in India by any third party (or by it). Moreover, the Hon'ble AAR in the case of Ind Telesoft P. Ltd. 267 ITR 725 have held that tax was not required to be deducted out of foreign Agent’s Commission. In that view of the matter, the decision of the AAR in SKF Boilers cannot be said to be a binding precedent. ………….. …………… …………. …………… ………….. ……………. …………….. ……………… …………. …………… 4.1.7 In the present case, there is no business connection at all of the agent in Indi…

M/S. PURE SOFTWARE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 715/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblepure Software Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito C/O. M/S Rra Tax India, Ward-20(2) D-28, South Extension, Part-1 C. R. Building New Delhi New Delhi Aadcp5432B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 195Section 40Section 5Section 5(2)Section 9

…9 of the Act will be applicable in the present case, business income cannot be treated as fees for technical services as alleged by the Assessing Officer. Even commission income has also been considered as business income as held by AAR in Tele soft Pvt. Ltd 267 ITR 725 recently CBDT has issued Circular No. 4/15 dated 26/3/2015 emphasizing legislative intent with regard to Section 9 read with Section 195 of the Act. Legislative intend is very clear as to Section 5 including Sub Section 2 of the Section 5 wherein it is clearly state that if income does not accrue or arise in India nor is it received in India inco…

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SH. KULBEER SINGH, NEW DELHI

ITA 5204/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Vs. Kulbeer Singh, Ward-26(1), H-432, Vikas Puri, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Amqps5847P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 195Section 197Section 40Section 9

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITO, Vs. Kulbeer Singh, Ward-26(1), H-432, Vikas Puri, New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AMQPS5847P (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by : Shri Amit Jain, Sr. DR Assessee by: None Date of Hearing 25/07/2018 Date of pronouncement 03/10/2018 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This appeal is filed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward – 26 (1), New Delhi against the order of The Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals – XXIV , New Delhi dated 3/7/2014 for AY 2010 – 11 where the only i…

ASST CIT 19(3), MUMBAI vs. S.K. AGE EXPORTS, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2524/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2013-14 Acit-19(3), M/S S.K. Age Exports, R. No.206M 2Nd Floor, 3-A, Shivsagar Estate, Dr. बनाम/ Matru Mandir, Annie Besant Road, Worli, Vs. Tardeo Raod, Mumbai-400018 Mumbai-400007 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaafs4534R

Section 143(3)Section 195

…able territory, the amount of sales commission was not liable to tax in India. The foreign agent does not have any Business Connection in India and hence his income is not deemed to accrue or arise in India. 2.4.22 In the case of Ind Telesofi Pvt. Ltd (2004) 267 ITR 725, the Authority for Advance Rulings held that commission and retainer fees received by non resident agent from Indian exporters is not taxable in India. In the said case, assessee was engaged in the business of providing software solutions for telecom industry. It entered into agreement with three non- residents from three different countries viz…

THE DCIT, PANCHMAHAL CIRCLE,, PANCHMAHAL vs. THE PANCHMAHAL STEEL LTD.,, PANCHMAHAL

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 634/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.634/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-2014 Dcit, Panchmahal Circle Vs. The Panchmahal Steel Ltd. Godhra 389 001. Gidc, Kalol Dist: Panchmahal,Gujarat.

For Appellant: Shri M.J. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 195Section 40

…ission amounts which were earned by the non-resident for services rendered outside India could not be deemed to be income which had either accrued or arisen in India. Further, in the case of Authority for advance rulings in the case Ind Telesoft(P) Ltd [2004] 267 ITR 725 (AAR) it is held that no tax was deductible at source under section 195 of the Act on payments of commission and retainer fee made by the appellant to the non- 4 resident companies for securing business outside India where the said entities had no office or business operations in India. 3.3.2. Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of GE India Technol…

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 2(2),

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4736/MUM/2010[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhstate Bank Of India Acit Circle (2)(2), Financial Reporting, Compliance & Mumbai. Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit Circle (2)(2), State Bank Of India Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Compliance & Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena (CIT-DR)
Section 14ASection 195Section 253Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40Section 43D

…6 & 4598/M/2010- State Bank of India have accrued or arisen in India in the hands of the non-residents. In the course of hearing reliance has been placed on the following decisions: (i) CIT vs. Toshoku Ltd. [1980] 125 ITR 525 (SC) (ii) Ind. Telesoft P. Ltd. (267 ITR 725) (AAR) (iii) Raymond Ltd. vs. DCIT [2003] 86 ITD 791 (Mum-Trib.) On the other hand, ld. DR relied upon the order of authorities below. 24. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. Factually speaking, the discussion in the assessment order clearly points out that the expenditure has been paid towards the services in connection with the…

ACIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4598/MUM/2010[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhstate Bank Of India Acit Circle (2)(2), Financial Reporting, Compliance & Mumbai. Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit Circle (2)(2), State Bank Of India Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Compliance & Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena (CIT-DR)
Section 14ASection 195Section 253Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40Section 43D

…6 & 4598/M/2010- State Bank of India have accrued or arisen in India in the hands of the non-residents. In the course of hearing reliance has been placed on the following decisions: (i) CIT vs. Toshoku Ltd. [1980] 125 ITR 525 (SC) (ii) Ind. Telesoft P. Ltd. (267 ITR 725) (AAR) (iii) Raymond Ltd. vs. DCIT [2003] 86 ITD 791 (Mum-Trib.) On the other hand, ld. DR relied upon the order of authorities below. 24. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. Factually speaking, the discussion in the assessment order clearly points out that the expenditure has been paid towards the services in connection with the…

ACIT 16(3), MUMBAI vs. S.K. AGE EXPORTS, MUMBAI

In the result all appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5445/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.3348,3349&5445/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Acit-16(3), Mumbai-400007 Vs. M/S S.K.Age Exports, 3-A, Shivsagar Estate, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400018 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaafs 4534 R (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vivek Batra ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Hari Raheja सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/09/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 25/11/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Mumbai, For The Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011- 12, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of I.T. Act. 2. Common Grievance Of The Revenue In All The Years Pertains To Deleting Disallowance Made On Account Of Payment Made For Export Commission On Which No Tds Was Deducted & Assessee Was Found To Be In Default By The Ao U/S.195 Of The I.T.Act. The Disallowance So Made By The Ao Was Deleted By The Cit(A) After Having Following Observation :- 2.4.6 Now I Proceed To Adjudicate On The Merits Of The Case. From The Facts Submitted, It Is Apparent That The Issue In Question Was Of Payment To A Non-Resident By Way Of Export Commission For Services Rendered Outside India On Which Payments Are Remitted Directly Abroad & As Such No Tax Was Required To Be Deducted U/S. 195 Of The Act. The Non-Resident Did Not Have Any Business Connection Or Dependent Agent In India & The Amount Paid Was Not Through Or From Any Property, Asset Or Source Of Income In India. As Such, The Amount Paid Is Not Income Which Is Chargeable Under The Provisions Of The Act & Hence, No Tax Was Deductible Therefrom. 2.4.7 I Am Fortified In The Above View By The Decision Of The Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Hari RahejaFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Batra
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 195(1)Section 9

…xable territory, the amount of sales commission was not liable to tax in India. The foreign agent does not have any Business Connection in India and hence his income is not deemed to accrue or arise in India. 2.4.22 In the case of Ind Telesofi Pvt. Ltd (2004) 267 ITR 725, the Authority for Advance Rulings held that commission and retainer fees received by non resident agent from Indian exporters is not taxable in India. In the said case, assessee was engaged in the business of providing software solutions for telecom industry. It entered into agreement with three non- residents from three different countries viz…

ACIT 16(3), MUMBAI vs. S.K. AGE EXPORTS, MUMBAI

In the result all appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3349/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.3348,3349&5445/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Acit-16(3), Mumbai-400007 Vs. M/S S.K.Age Exports, 3-A, Shivsagar Estate, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400018 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaafs 4534 R (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vivek Batra ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Hari Raheja सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/09/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 25/11/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Mumbai, For The Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011- 12, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of I.T. Act. 2. Common Grievance Of The Revenue In All The Years Pertains To Deleting Disallowance Made On Account Of Payment Made For Export Commission On Which No Tds Was Deducted & Assessee Was Found To Be In Default By The Ao U/S.195 Of The I.T.Act. The Disallowance So Made By The Ao Was Deleted By The Cit(A) After Having Following Observation :- 2.4.6 Now I Proceed To Adjudicate On The Merits Of The Case. From The Facts Submitted, It Is Apparent That The Issue In Question Was Of Payment To A Non-Resident By Way Of Export Commission For Services Rendered Outside India On Which Payments Are Remitted Directly Abroad & As Such No Tax Was Required To Be Deducted U/S. 195 Of The Act. The Non-Resident Did Not Have Any Business Connection Or Dependent Agent In India & The Amount Paid Was Not Through Or From Any Property, Asset Or Source Of Income In India. As Such, The Amount Paid Is Not Income Which Is Chargeable Under The Provisions Of The Act & Hence, No Tax Was Deductible Therefrom. 2.4.7 I Am Fortified In The Above View By The Decision Of The Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Hari RahejaFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Batra
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 195(1)Section 9

…xable territory, the amount of sales commission was not liable to tax in India. The foreign agent does not have any Business Connection in India and hence his income is not deemed to accrue or arise in India. 2.4.22 In the case of Ind Telesofi Pvt. Ltd (2004) 267 ITR 725, the Authority for Advance Rulings held that commission and retainer fees received by non resident agent from Indian exporters is not taxable in India. In the said case, assessee was engaged in the business of providing software solutions for telecom industry. It entered into agreement with three non- residents from three different countries viz…

ACIT 16(3), MUMBAI vs. S.K. AGE EXPORTS, MUMBAI

In the result all appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3348/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.3348,3349&5445/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Acit-16(3), Mumbai-400007 Vs. M/S S.K.Age Exports, 3-A, Shivsagar Estate, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400018 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaafs 4534 R (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vivek Batra ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Hari Raheja सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/09/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 25/11/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Mumbai, For The Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011- 12, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of I.T. Act. 2. Common Grievance Of The Revenue In All The Years Pertains To Deleting Disallowance Made On Account Of Payment Made For Export Commission On Which No Tds Was Deducted & Assessee Was Found To Be In Default By The Ao U/S.195 Of The I.T.Act. The Disallowance So Made By The Ao Was Deleted By The Cit(A) After Having Following Observation :- 2.4.6 Now I Proceed To Adjudicate On The Merits Of The Case. From The Facts Submitted, It Is Apparent That The Issue In Question Was Of Payment To A Non-Resident By Way Of Export Commission For Services Rendered Outside India On Which Payments Are Remitted Directly Abroad & As Such No Tax Was Required To Be Deducted U/S. 195 Of The Act. The Non-Resident Did Not Have Any Business Connection Or Dependent Agent In India & The Amount Paid Was Not Through Or From Any Property, Asset Or Source Of Income In India. As Such, The Amount Paid Is Not Income Which Is Chargeable Under The Provisions Of The Act & Hence, No Tax Was Deductible Therefrom. 2.4.7 I Am Fortified In The Above View By The Decision Of The Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Hari RahejaFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Batra
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 195(1)Section 9

…xable territory, the amount of sales commission was not liable to tax in India. The foreign agent does not have any Business Connection in India and hence his income is not deemed to accrue or arise in India. 2.4.22 In the case of Ind Telesofi Pvt. Ltd (2004) 267 ITR 725, the Authority for Advance Rulings held that commission and retainer fees received by non resident agent from Indian exporters is not taxable in India. In the said case, assessee was engaged in the business of providing software solutions for telecom industry. It entered into agreement with three non- residents from three different countries viz…

M/S APSARA SILKS,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, all these appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 442/BANG/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kulkarni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Das, Jt. CIT(DR)
Section 195Section 201(1)Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(i)Section 90

…f Written ITA Nos.442 to 444/Bang/2015 Page 5 of 7 Submissions being reproduction of Ruling of AAR in the case of Rajiv Malhotra, 284 ITR 564 (AAR) and he pointed out that in this order, AAR has referred to its own another Ruling in Ind. Telesoft P. Ltd., 267 ITR 725 (AAR) and it is stated that in that case, agents were securing business from outside India and this Ruling was distinguished by AAR in the case of Rajiv Malhotra (supra) by stating that the facts in that case are different, because in that case, the non-resident agents secured business from persons (supra) and this Ruling of AAR is in favour…