How many judgments cite CIT(A) v. Eon Technology Pvt. Ltd.?

58 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT(A) v. Eon Technology Pvt. Ltd. (343 ITR 366), spanning 2013 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT(A) v. Eon Technology Pvt. Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 195, Section 40(a)(i), Section 9(1)(i), Section 40(a)(ia), Section 148.

CIT(A) v. Eon Technology Pvt. Ltd.

343 ITR 366High Court2012#1983 most cited

What is CIT(A) v. Eon Technology Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

Payments to a non-resident agent for services rendered outside India, where the agent has no permanent establishment (PE) or business connection in India, are not chargeable to tax in India. Consequently, there is no obligation to deduct tax at source under Section 195, and no disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) can be made.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Eon Technology · 343 ITR 366 · Section 195 · Section 40(a)(i) · Section 9(1)(i) · TDS non-resident · business connection · permanent establishment · income chargeable in India · foreign agent commission · services outside India · disallowance 40(a)(i)

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 195 Section 40(a)(i)Section 9(1)(i)Section 40(a)(ia)Section 148 Section 172 Section 195(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 9(1)(i)section 9(1)(vii)(b)section 195(1)business connection section 9(1)(vii)section 195 permanent establishment section 40(a)(i)section 9(1)section 9(1)(vi)fees for technical services non-resident

Judgments citing CIT(A) v. Eon Technology Pvt. Ltd.

ITO WARD 3(1)(4), RAJKOT-STATION- AMRELI, AMRELI, GUJARAT vs. AVADH AGRI EXPORTS, AMRELI, GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 816/RJT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Apr 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 172Section 195Section 195(1)Section 195(2)Section 250

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, राजकोट "यायपीठ, राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND DR. DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 816/RJT/2025 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) ITO Avadh Agri Exports Vs. Ward 3 (1)(4), 86-2, GIDC, Varasada Road, Rajkot-Station-Amreli Amreli, Gujarat - 365601 PAN/GIR No.: AAGFA0810L (Assessee) (Respondent) राज" की ओर से/Revenue by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, AR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 19/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/D…

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-3(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. SONPAL EXPORTS PVT. LTD., RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 29/RJT/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 29/Rjt/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) The Dcit, Circle – 3(1), Vs. M/S. Sonpal Exports Pvt. Ltd. Rajkot Aayakar Bhavan, Room Dhari Bagsara Road, Nr. Ice No. 114, 1St Floor, Race Course Factory, Amreli Ring Road, Rajkot Pan No.: Aajcs0177N (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Praveen Verma, Ld. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 24/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am; By Way Of This Appeal, The Revenue, Has Challenged Correctness Of The Order Dated 16.11.2017, Passed By The Learned Cit(A), In The Matter Of Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. Grievances Raised By The Revenue, Which Are Interconnected & Will Be Taken Up Together, Are As Follows: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 13,96,33,023/- Holding That Provision Of Section 195 Will Not Be Applicable. 2. On The Facts Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Erred In Ignoring The Facts That The Assessee Has Failed To Prove The Genuineness Of Foreign Commission Expenses Before The A.O. 3. It Is, Therefore, Prayed That The Order Of The C.I.T. (A) May Be Set Aside & That Of The A.O. Be Restored To The Above Extent. Dcit Vs. M/S. Sonpal Export Pvt. Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Verma, Ld. CIT(DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195

…a failing which the provisions of section 195 will not be applicable to the assessee. Further reliance was placed by the assessee on the following decisions: (i)GE India Technology Centre (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (SC) 327 ITR 456 (ii)CIT vs. EON Technology (P) (Ltd) 343 ITR 366 (Delhi HC) (iii)DCIT VS. Divi's Laboratories Ltd. (2011)131 ITD 271 (Hyderabad) (iv)DCIT vs. Angelique International (2013) 55 SOT 226 (Delhi) (v)Adidas Sourcing Limited 150 TTJ 801 (DELHI) (vi)SPAHI Projects Pvt. Ltd., 183 Taxman 92 (AAR) (vii)Linde A.G. vs Income Tax Officer 62 ITD 330 (Mum.) 2017-17 (ix)CEAT International S.A. 37 ITR 859 (Bomb…

ACIT., CIRCLE-1, AGRA vs. M/S DAWAR FOODWEAR INDUSTRIES, , AGRA

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 433/AGR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 433/Agr/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) बनाम/ Acit-Circle-1, M/S. Dawar Footwear Industries Agra. 53, T.P. Nagar, Agra. Vs. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafd-6003-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. Cit-Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Rajendra Sharma, Adv. – Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11 Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Agra [Cit(A)] On 31-03-2015 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 18-03- 2013. Both Sides Made Vehement Arguments. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed- Off As Under. The Sole Grievance Of The Revenue Is Deletion Of Disallowance U/S 40(A)(I) Against Foreign Commission Payments & Sample & Development Charges As Paid By The Assessee To Non- Resident Entities. The Assessee Derived Income From Manufacturing & Trading Of Footwear.

For Appellant: Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. CIT-DRFor Respondent: Sh. Rajendra Sharma, Adv. – Ld. AR

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9

….47 Lacs. The assessee also paid sample design development expenses to foreign parties which was similarly disallowed for Rs.36.15 Lacs. 3. The Ld. CIT(A), inter-alia, relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of EON Technology Pvt. Ltd. (343 ITR 366) as well as the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Faizan Shoes Pvt. Ltd. (48 Taxmann.com 48) to hold that where foreign agents had no PE in India, no part of their services would be rendered in India and therefore, there would be no obligation to deduct TDS u/s 195. On the issue of sample charges, it was held that when the p…

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. ALLSEC TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, CHENNAI

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1662/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1255/Chny/2019 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1662/Chny/2019 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit M/S. Allsec Technologies Limited बनाम/ Corporate Circle-1(1), 560, 562, 7H Century Plaza, Vs. Chennai. Teynampet, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 018. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aacca-5106-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Revenue By : Ms. Kavitha (Addl.Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) - Ld.Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-11-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11 & 2011-12 Has Common Issues. First We Take Up Appeal For Ay 2010-11 Which Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chennai [Cit(A)] Dated 31-01-2019 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) R.W.S.

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) - Ld.ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha (Addl.CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…se, no TDS would be required on these payments. Reference was made to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Toshoku Limited Ltd (125 TR 525) as well as the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Eon Technology P. Ltd 343 ITR 366. The assessee also obtained nil deduction certificates for similar payments in subsequent year. The attention was drawn to the terms of agreement dated 18-04- 2009. The assessee paid selling commission of Rs.197.18 Lacs and deducted TDS of 10% post withdrawal of Circular No.23 dated 23-07- 1969 on 22-10-2009. The Tax was deducted thereafter. Neve…

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. ALLSEC TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, CHENNAI

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1255/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) - Ld.ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha (Addl.CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

DCIT, NASHIK vs. KUNJ EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED, MALEGAON

In the result, matter is restored to the file of NFAC on the above lines

ITA 971/PUN/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Pune04 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.971/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dcit, Nashik Vs. Kunj Exim Private Limited, Tamba Kanta No.75, Pinjar Street, Malegaon, Nashik – 423 203 Maharashtra Pan : Aaeck6572G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastava

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 37(1)Section 40

…s further contended that the AO ought not to have returned finding of fact that commission expenditure is not a genuine one. The ld. CIT(A)/NFAC placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Eon Technology (P) Ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 366 (Delhi) allowed the claim, however, failed to deal with the aspect of genuineness of the expenditure, which formed the basis for addition. Further, the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC had proceeded to hold that since the AO had not disallowed the expenditure u/s.37(1), assumed that no disallowance can be made on account of non-genuineness of the expenditure. 4.…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(1), BENGALURU vs. G. TEX INC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1129/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Hemanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 195Section 195(1)Section 250Section 40

…herefore, the natural consequences is that on such payment assessee is not obliged to deduct tax at source under section 195 of the income tax act. The learned Commissioner of income tax appeals has relied upon the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in 343 ITR 366 wherein it has been held that when a non-resident agent operates outside the country no part of his income arises in India and since payment is remitted directly abroad and merely because an entry in the books of accounts of the assessee is made, it did not mean that non-resident has received any payment in India. Therefore, no business connectio…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ALLSEC TECHNOLOGIES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 421/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT) –Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 195Section 195(1)Section 40

…t have any permanent establishment (PE) in India and therefore, the payments were not liable to TDS as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Toshuku Ltd. 125 ITR 525 and the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. EON Technology P. Ltd. 343 ITR 366. The assessee also relied on CBDT circular no. 23 dated 23.07.1969 which was in force in this year since the same was withdrawn only on 22.10.2009. 2.3 Concurring with assessee’s submissions Ld. CIT(A) held as under: - 13. The facts and circumstances of the case have been examined vis-à-vis the findings of the AO. The agreements entered into by t…

ALKYL AMINES CHEMICALS LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT (OSD) 10(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1019/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Alkyl Amines Chemicals Ld., V. Dcit (Osd)-10(3) 401-407, Nirman Vyapar Kendra Room No. 517, 4Th Floor Plot No. 10, Sector – 17 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400703 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaaca6783F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Shruti Agarwal Department By : Shri Mehul Jain

For Appellant: Ms. Shruti AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 195Section 40

…ndia. We found that the non-resident brokers have not rendered any services in India, therefore, commission income neither accrued nor arose in India. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Eon Technology (P) Ltd. [2012] 343 ITR 366/2011] 203 Taxman 256/15 taxmann.com 391," The Appellant craves leave to further rely on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Orient Express [2015] 5 M/s. Alkyl Amines Chemicals Ld., 56 taxmann.com 331, wherein the Hon'ble High Court upheld the view taken by the lower authorities that an Assessee, manufacturer and e…

DCIT, C-4, JAIPUR vs. M/S. JLC ELECTROMET PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 166/JPR/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra GargieyaFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…king payment to these foreign agents directly. ITAT have observed from the facts as emerging from records that commission income neither accrued nor arose in India in view of the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of EON Technology Pvt. Limited, 343 ITR 366 (Del.) Revenue has not brought on record any cogent material to substantiate that there is any PE or business association in India of these foreign agents, nor any evidence is brought on record to establish that there is any portion of services rendered by these foreign agents from India. In ITAT considered view, these foreign agents have rendere…

ACIT, CIRCLE- 10(2), NEW DELHI vs. GROZ ENGINEERING TOOLS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

ITA 3895/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40a

…y covered by the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. 2017 912) TMI 474-Delhi High Court and The Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-IV, New Delhi vs. Eon Technology P. Ltd. [2012] 343 ITR 366 wherein it has been held that no TDS is required to be deducted on the commission paid to overseas agent. 5.8 The observations of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi Vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.- 2017 (12) TMI 474 - Delhi High Court are as under: “11. The contention of the Revenue, invoking Section 195…

ACIT, CIRCLE- 10(2), NEW DELHI vs. GROZ ENGINEERING TOOLS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

ITA 3894/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40a

M/S. PRIME OCEANIC PVT. LTD. GANDHI NAGAR, UPLA SONAVA, SCHEME NO.8, ALWAR,ALWAR vs. ITO WARD-2(3), ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, the disallowance so made is directed to be deleted and the ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 652/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)

Section 195Section 40

…No. 862 & 863/Mum/2018) • DCIT (International Taxation), Ahmedabad vs. Welspun Corporation Ltd. (2017) 77 taxmann.com 16. • CIT vs Kikani Exports Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 369 ITR 96 (Mad) • CIT vs. Model Exims (2014) 363 ITR 66 (All.) • CIT vs. EON Technology P. Ltd. 343 ITR 366 (Del.) It is thus submitted that sum paid by assessee does not fall under any of the category mentioned above, and therefore is not taxable under 9(1)(vii). It is therefore submitted that there was no liability to deduct tax at source u/s 195 of the Income Tax Act. Now coming to Ld. CIT(A) observation that in view of amendment in explanation be…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. MR GURCHARAN SINGH, DELHI

In the result appeal of the Id

ITA 133/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shuklaa N D Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Acit, Shri Gurcharan Singh, Vs. 646, 1St Floor, Circle-47(1), Gali Ganteshwar, Katra Neel, Chandni Chowk, New Delhi. Delhi - 110 006. Pan: Atbps9241F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Patwari, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. S. Negi, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 197Section 40

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER A N D SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through Video Conferencing) ACIT, Shri Gurcharan Singh, Vs. 646, 1st Floor, Circle-47(1), Gali Ganteshwar, Katra Neel, Chandni Chowk, New Delhi. Delhi - 110 006. PAN: ATBPS9241F (Appellant) (Respondent) Department by : Shri S. S. Negi, Sr. DR Assessee by : Shri Mayank Patwari, CA Date of Hearing 08/04/2021 Date of pronouncement IP/06/2021 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI. A. M. 1. This appeal is filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 47 (1),…

VIRENDRA SINGH BHADAURIA,JAIPUR vs. PR. CIT-3, , JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 255/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 255/Jp/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Virendra Singh Bhadauriya, Cuke Pr.Cit-3, Vs. 71, Mansa Nagar, Shirsi Road, Jaipur. Jaipur-302012. Pan No.: Aaepb 0767 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Ms. Datyani Pandey (Adv) & Shri Rajiv Pandey (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 10/02/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 25/03/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-3, Jaipur Dated 16/03/2020 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Jaipur Erred In:- Ground No.1:- In Holding That The Assessment Order Dt.26.12.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) By Assessing Officer To Be Erroneous In So Far As Is Prejudicial To Interest Of Revenue On Issues Of 2

For Appellant: Ms. Datyani Pandey (Adv) &For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54F

…Bros. 216 ITR 548 CIT Vs. Gokul Das Exports 333 ITR 214 Smt. Anita Malpotra V/s. ITO (2007) 109 TTJ (ASR) 76 India Heritage Foundation’s Vs. Dy. Director of Income Tax 149 TTJ 908 (Bangalore) relevant para 11 page 915 of the order. EON Technologies Pvt. Ltd. 343 ITR 366 (Del) 5. On the other hand, the ld CIT-DR has relied on the order passed by the ld. Pr.CIT. 6. We have heard the ld. Counsels of both the parties and have perused the material placed on record. We have also deliberated upon the decisions cited in the orders passed by the authorities below as well 16 ITA 255/JP/2020_ Virendra Singh Bhadauriya Vs…

DCIT 8(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHAMROCK PHARMACHEMI P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 862/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M.Balaganeshita Nos. 862 & 863/Mum/2018 (Assessment Years :2013-14 & 2014-15) Dcit-8(2)(1) Vs. M/S. Shamrock Pharmachemi Room No.624, Pvt.Ltd. Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Off Dr. E Moses Road Mumbai-400 020 Worli, Mumbai-400 025 Pan/Gir No.Aaacs6290H (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Bharat Gandhi, Ar Revenue By Shri V.Vinod Kumar, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing 28/10/2020 Date Of Pronouncement 11/11/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per M. Balaganesh (A.M): These Two Appeals Filed By Revenue In Ita Nos. 862 & 863/Mum/2018 For Assessment Years (Ay) 2013-14 & 2014-15 Arise Out Of The Order By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 14, Mumbai In Appeals No.Cit(A)-14/It-170/15-16 & Cit(A)-14/It- 119/16-17, Dated 27/11/2017 (Ld. Cit(A) In Short) Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As Act) Dated 31/08/2016 By The Ld. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-8(2)(1), Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. Ao).

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 195(1)Section 195(2)Section 40

…allowable expenditure. In Toshoku Ltd., supra, the Supreme Court held that payments to agents for performance of services outside India are not liable to be taxed in India. 35. In CIT v. EON Technology (P.) Ltd. [2011] 15 Taxmann.com 391/203 Taxman 266/[2012] 343 ITR 366 (Delhi), the High Court of Delhi held that payment of sales commission to non-resident who operates outside the country would not attract tax, if payment was remitted abroad directly. Merely because an entry had been made in the books of accounts of the appellant/assessee, that would not mean that the non-resident agent had received payment in In…

STERLING ORNAMENTS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 24(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 6622/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conference) A.Y. : 2016-17

Section 195Section 195(1)Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…ITA NO. 6622/DEL/2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC-1’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) A.Y. : 2016-17 M/S STERLING ORNAMENTS Vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 24(2), PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI B-3, SECOND FLOOR, CHIRAG ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI - 110 048 (PAN: AAICS9774J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Piyush Kaushik, Advocate Department by Sh. R.K. Gupta, Sr. DR. ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM: This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the impugned order dated 10.06.2019 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-8, New…

ACIT -25(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. GEPACH INTERNATIONAL, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5943/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shris. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5943 & 5942/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15)

For Appellant: Ms. Samatha, DR byFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta, AR

Section 143(2)Section 195Section 40Section 9

…The Commission amounts which were earned by the non-residents for services rendered outside India could not be deemed to be income which had either accrued or arisen in India." The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. EON Technology P. Ltd. (2011)(343 ITR 366)(DeL) has held that, non-resident commission agents based outside India rendering services of procuring orders cannot be said to have a business connection in India and the commission payments to them cannot be said to have been either accrued or arisen in India. In vie\v of the decisions cited above (supra), we are of the considered opinion that…

M/S JLC ELECTROMET PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1494/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya &For Respondent: Shri Jai Singh (JCIT)

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 234BSection 40

…reafter, the natural consequences are that on such payment assessee is not obliged to deduct tax at source under section 195 of the income tax act. The learned Commissioner of income tax appeals has relied upon the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in 343 ITR 366 wherein it has been held that when a non-resident agent operates outside the country no part of his income arises in India and since payment is remitted directly abroad and merely because an entry in the books of accounts of the assessee is made, it did not mean that non-resident has received any payment in India. Therefore, no business connectio…

M/S. J.J. PATEL & CO.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT, RANGE-12,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 938/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Devetia & Mehul TaleraFor Respondent: Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr. D.R

Section 194Section 250Section 37Section 37(1)Section 40

…he foreign agents operates outside the country, no party of such income arises in India so that withholding tax u/s. 194 on export commission is not required to be made. 7 The Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held in the matter of CIT vs. Eon Technology (P) Ltd. 343 ITR 366 it is held that the sales commission paid to the holding company on the sales and amounts realized on export contract was not disallowable u/s. 40(a)(i) since the non-resident agent operated outside the country and no part of his income arises in India. In this case in hand, that assessee/ appellant has filed Certificate of Incorporation paid eff…

Showing 1–20 of 58 · Page 1 of 3