ACIT v. Modern Insulators Ltd.

ASSTT. CIT -3(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. ROCHE DIAGNOSTIC INDIA PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 908 & 909/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2012-13) बिधम/ Acit Circle-3(1)(1) M/S. Rideema Toll Pvt. Ltd. Room No.607, 6Th Floor, M/S. Roche Diagnostic India Pvt. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Ltd. 501-B, 5Th Floor, Silver Utopia Road, Mumbai-400020. Cardinal Gracious Road, Chakala Andheri (E), Mumbai-400069. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaca0266H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri T. Shankar (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: Shri Nitesh Joshi सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -18, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys.2013-14 & 2012-13. Ita. No.909/Mum/2021 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 18.02.2020 Passed By The Cit(A)-18, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13. 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - "1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Right In Deleting The Addition Made On

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 908 & 909/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2012-13) बिधम/ ACIT Circle-3(1)(1) M/s. Rideema Toll Pvt. Ltd. Room No.607, 6th Floor, M/s. Roche Diagnostic India Pvt. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Ltd. 501-B, 5th Floor, Silver Utopia Road, Mumbai-400020. Cardinal Gracious Road, Chakala Andheri (E), Mumbai-400069. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACA0266H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue by: Shri T. Shankar (Sr. AR) Assessee by:…

ACIT - 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. INDO INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G Manjunatha () & Shri Ravish Sood () Acit-2(2)(10, Mumbai Vs M/S Indo Industries Ltd A-1, Samir Apartments 169, S.V. Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai-58 Pan : Aaaci8197D Appellant Respondednt

…of Section 40(a)(i) in view of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G.E.India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd., 327 ITR 456. There are also judicial pronouncements supporting this proposition, which are reported in 10 ITR 501(Trib), 86 ITD 102 and 10 ITR 147(Trib). 10. Payment of brokerage to the said non-resident brokers for non technical services is the business income of the payee and therefore, not liable to tax in India as was held in the case of Sri Subharaman Subramanian, 30 taxmann.com 236 (Bang.). We do not find any merit in the contention of the learned DR that brokerage so paid to the nonre…

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

…nagerial, technical, consultancy service and hence commission attributable to services rendered cannot be regarded as royalty or fees for technical Services chargeable u/s. 9(1 )(vi) or (vii). 2.4.15 The Jaipur ITAT in the case of Modern Insulator Ltd (2011) 10 ITR 147 has held that non-resident agency companies have not made available any technical or managerial service and hence commission paid for such companies is a business profit and not technical services. 2.4.16 The Mumbai ITAT in the case of Ardeshi and Curstejee & Sons Ltd. (2008) 7 DTR 51 has held that the foreign agents right to receive the commissi…

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

In the result all appeals of the revenue are dismissed

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

…nagerial, technical, consultancy service and hence commission attributable to services rendered cannot be regarded as royalty or fees for technical Services chargeable u/s. 9(1 )(vi) or (vii). 2.4.15 The Jaipur ITAT in the case of Modern Insulator Ltd (2011) 10 ITR 147 has held that non-resident agency companies have not made available any technical or managerial service and hence commission paid for such companies is a business profit and not technical services. 2.4.16 The Mumbai ITAT in the case of Ardeshi and Curstejee & Sons Ltd. (2008) 7 DTR 51 has held that the foreign agents right to receive the commissio…

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

In the result all appeals of the revenue are dismissed

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

…nagerial, technical, consultancy service and hence commission attributable to services rendered cannot be regarded as royalty or fees for technical Services chargeable u/s. 9(1 )(vi) or (vii). 2.4.15 The Jaipur ITAT in the case of Modern Insulator Ltd (2011) 10 ITR 147 has held that non-resident agency companies have not made available any technical or managerial service and hence commission paid for such companies is a business profit and not technical services. 2.4.16 The Mumbai ITAT in the case of Ardeshi and Curstejee & Sons Ltd. (2008) 7 DTR 51 has held that the foreign agents right to receive the commissio…

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

In the result all appeals of the revenue are dismissed

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

…nagerial, technical, consultancy service and hence commission attributable to services rendered cannot be regarded as royalty or fees for technical Services chargeable u/s. 9(1 )(vi) or (vii). 2.4.15 The Jaipur ITAT in the case of Modern Insulator Ltd (2011) 10 ITR 147 has held that non-resident agency companies have not made available any technical or managerial service and hence commission paid for such companies is a business profit and not technical services. 2.4.16 The Mumbai ITAT in the case of Ardeshi and Curstejee & Sons Ltd. (2008) 7 DTR 51 has held that the foreign agents right to receive the commissio…

PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHAN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

…of Section 40(a)(i) in view of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of G.E.India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd., 327 ITR 456. There are also judicial pronouncements supporting this proposition, which are reported in 10 ITR 501(Trib), 86 ITD 102 and 10 ITR 147(Trib). 10. Payment of brokerage to the said non-resident brokers for non technical services is the business income of the payee and therefore, not liable to tax in India as was held in the case of Sri Subharaman Subramanian, 30 taxmann.com 236 (Bang.). We do not find any merit in the contention of the learned DR that brokerage so paid to the non-…

ASST CIT 19(3), MUMBAI vs. PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHIN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

…of Section 40(a)(i) in view of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of G.E.India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd., 327 ITR 456. There are also judicial pronouncements supporting this proposition, which are reported in 10 ITR 501(Trib), 86 ITD 102 and 10 ITR 147(Trib). 10. Payment of brokerage to the said non-resident brokers for non technical services is the business income of the payee and therefore, not liable to tax in India as was held in the case of Sri Subharaman Subramanian, 30 taxmann.com 236 (Bang.). We do not find any merit in the contention of the learned DR that brokerage so paid to the non-…

MACOMA HARDWARES,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 25(3)), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

…of Section 40(a)(i) in view of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of G.E.India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd., 327 ITR 456. There are also judicial pronouncements supporting this proposition, which are reported in 10 ITR 501(Trib), 86 ITD 102 and 10 ITR 147(Trib). 8. Respectfully following the above decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, High Courts and ITAT Benches, we do not find any merit in the action of lower authorities for the disallowance of foreign commission on the plea of non-deduction of tax at source u/s.195 of the Act. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in…