CIT v. Faizan Shoes (P.) Ltd.

367 ITR 155High Court2014#732 most cited

What is CIT v. Faizan Shoes (P.) Ltd. authority for?

Disallowance under section 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of tax at source on export agency commission paid to a non-resident does not apply if the non-resident's income is not taxable in India under section 9(1), such as when the agent operates outside India without a permanent establishment or business connection in India.

139

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,518 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Faizan Shoes · CIT v. Faizan Shoes · section 195 · section 40(a)(i) · export agency commission · non-resident payments · TDS non-resident · income deemed to accrue · business connection · permanent establishment · section 9(1) · no tax deduction

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Faizan Shoes (P.) Ltd.

The Dy. CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Gujarat Microwax Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 2503/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 May 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Mahavir Prasadआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2503/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14) Dcit, M/S. Gujarat Microwax बनाम/ Cir – 2(1)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ahmedabad. 401 & 02, Sarthik Square, Sarkhej Gandhinagar Highway, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad – 380 054 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg 5593 P .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. Jayant Jhveri, Sr.D.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G.C. Pipara, C.A.

For Appellant: Dr. Jayant Jhveri, Sr.D.RFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Pipara, C.A
Section 195Section 40

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘lh lhlh lh’ अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ C ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD ds le{kA LoZJh oZJh oZJh olhe vgen oZJh olhe vgen olhe vgen] ys[kk lnL; ,oa olhe vgen ] ys[kk lnL; ,oa ] ys[kk lnL; ,oa egkohj izlkn ] ys[kk lnL; ,oa egkohj izlkn egkohj izlkn] U;kf;d lnL; egkohj izlkn ] U;kf;d lnL; ] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{kA ] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{kA ds le{kA BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2503/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14) DCIT, M/s. Gujarat Microwax बनाम/ Cir – 2(1)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Vs…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Peirce Leslie Travels Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1231/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 May 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 1231/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Peirce & Leslie Travel Private Income Tax, Corporate Circle 5(2), Vs. Limited, No. 37, Dr. P.V. Cherian Chennai 600 034. Crescent Road, Egmore, Chennai 600 008. [Pan:Aadcp5444K] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. S. Vijayaprabha, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. G. Vardini Karthik, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.05.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 3, Chennai, Dated 28.02.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Revenue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Directing To Delete The Disallowance Made Under Section 40(A)(I) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] On The Ground That The Payments Made To The Foreign Entities Are Not Liable To Tds.

For Appellant: Ms. S. Vijayaprabha, JCITFor Respondent: Ms. G. Vardini Karthik, Advocate
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…itted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2012-13, where, the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Faizan Shoes (P) Ltd. 367 ITR 155 has been followed. 5. We have heard both sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. With regard to the issue as to whether the TDS has to be deducted or not on the payments made to non-resident entities, we find that the issue is squarely covered in favour of 4 I.T.A. No.1231/M/17 the asse…

Harsha Impex, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3351/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.3351/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 M/S. Harsha Impex, The Income Tax Officer, No. 28, Kattur Sadayappan Street, Vs. Non Corporate Ward 4(4), Periamet, Chennai 600 003. Chennai 600 006. [Pan: Aacfh0426K] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. B. Jaisheila, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Sagadevan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.03.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.05.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 5, Chennai Dated 02.11.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Two Effective Grounds In Its Appeal, Viz., (I) The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Overseas Export Commission Of ₹.30,68,879/- Paid To Non Residents Under Section 40(A)(I) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] & (Ii), The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Expenses

For Appellant: Ms. B. Jaisheila, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Sagadevan, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 195(1)Section 40Section 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(vii)

…T.A. No.3351/Chny/16 agents outside India does not attract TDS provisions. It was further submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Faizan Shoes Pvt. Ltd. 367 ITR 155 (Mad). 3. On the other hand, the ld. DR strongly supported the orders passed by the authorities below. 4. We have heard both sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. The assessee has demonstrated before the Assessing Officer that what was paid to the non- resident agents was nothing but…