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

Also reported as

48 Taxmann.com 48226 Taxmann 115

Sections most often in play

Section 195Section 9(1)(vii)Section 40(a)(i)Section 40(a)(ia)Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 92CASection 37

Issues it is cited on

section 9(1)(i)section 195(1)section 9(1)(vii)management feessection 40(a)(i)fees for technical servicessection 195permanent establishmentsection 9(1)business connectionnon-residentchild

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

ITO, Chennai vs. M/S. Cargoplan International (India) Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 3140/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Mar 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Mr.G.Seetharaman, CA
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 40Section 5(2)Section 9(1)(vii)Section 9(2)

…by way of permanent establishment in India, the income would be triggered in the country of residence where the services were rendered. The ratio in the context of commission agent laid down by the jurisdictional Court in the case of CIT v. Faizan Shoes P Ltd 367 ITR 155 applies mutatis mutandis. 21. The non-residents to whom payments were made were for a bouquet of services such as Inland transportation, storage of goods in transit, export documentation and shipping charges, export duty in the port of origin and clearance charges, Inland transportation and storage charges in the destination. These cannot be cla…

M/S. Sridhar & Co., Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2589/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Feb 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2589/Mds/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Sridhar & Co The Income Tax Officer, J3, J4, Govt. Industrial Estate, V. Non-Corporate Ward 6(3), Madhavaram, Chennai – 34. Chennai – 600 060. Pan : Aalfs6349F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri N. Devanathan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Sahadevan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.01.2017 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.02.2017 आदेश आदेश /O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per N.R.S. Ganesan:

For Appellant: Shri N. Devanathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Sahadevan, JCIT
Section 195

…, the same is not taxable in India. In other words, the profit earned by the foreign agent on the services rendered outside India for procuring orders cannot be subject matter of taxation in India. The Madras High Court in CIT v Faizan Shoes Pvt. Ltd., [2014] 367 ITR 155 (Mad) found that the services rendered by non-resident agent can at the best be called as a services for completion of export commitment. The Madras High Court further found that the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source when the non-resident agent provides services outside 5 I.T.A. No. 2589/Mds/2016 India on payment of commission. T…

M/S. A-One Leathers, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3061/CHNY/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3061/Mds/2016. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2007-2008. M/S. A-One Leathers Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Tanners & Exports, Ncw 4(1) No.10/5, Nabhikhan Zubaida Chennai 600 006. Street, Periamet Chennai 600 003. [Pan Aaafa 4576H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 195(1)(i)Section 40Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

…t be treated as income deemed to accrue or arise in India and therefore the provisions of section 195 has no application in such cases. The assessee also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs Faizan Shoes P. Ltd. (2014)367 ITR 155. The additional information firled by the assessee has been verified and it is seen the facts of ITA No. 3061/Mds/2016. :- 6 -: the assessee's case is similar to M/s GE India Technology Centre P. Ltd. vs CIT & M/s. Faizan Shoes P. Ltd on the issue of foreign commission’’. Nevertheless ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held that assessee…

Sundaram Fasteners Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 813/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.813/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Sundaram Fasteners Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of 98-A, 7Th Floor, V. Income Tax, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Corporate Circle – 6(2), Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aaacs 8779 D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT

…am Vijayaraghavan, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that in the assessee's own case for assessment year 2010-11, the DRP allowed the claim of the assessee by placing reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in CIT v. Faizan Shoes Pvt. Ltd. (367 ITR 155), therefore, there is no reason for disallowing the issue during the year under consideration. 13 I.T.A. No.813/Mds/16 22. On the contrary, Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the DRP for the assessment year 2010-11, has allowed the claim of the assessee by placing reliance on the CBDT circular an…

ACIT, Tambaram vs. Jahan Leather Exports, Chennai

In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue and the cross objection of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1964/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri A.S.Sriraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, JCIT
Section 40

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ीएन.आर.एस. गणेशन,"या"यकसद"य एवं "ी "ड.एस. सु"दर "संह,लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1962 & 1963/Mds/2016 Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 The Assistant Commissioner of v. M/s.Jahan Leather Exports, Income Tax, No.103, Bazaar Street, Non Corporate Circle -22, Pallavaram, No.7, Ramakrishna Street, Chennai – 600 045. West Tambaram, Chennai – 600 045. PAN : AAEFJ3206B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1964/…

ACIT, Tambaram vs. Jahan Leather Exports, Chennai

In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue and the cross objection of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1963/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri A.S.Sriraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, JCIT
Section 40

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ीएन.आर.एस. गणेशन,"या"यकसद"य एवं "ी "ड.एस. सु"दर "संह,लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1962 & 1963/Mds/2016 Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 The Assistant Commissioner of v. M/s.Jahan Leather Exports, Income Tax, No.103, Bazaar Street, Non Corporate Circle -22, Pallavaram, No.7, Ramakrishna Street, Chennai – 600 045. West Tambaram, Chennai – 600 045. PAN : AAEFJ3206B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1964/…

ACIT, Tambaram vs. Jahan Leather Exports, Chennai

In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue and the cross objection of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1962/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri A.S.Sriraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, JCIT
Section 40

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ीएन.आर.एस. गणेशन,"या"यकसद"य एवं "ी "ड.एस. सु"दर "संह,लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1962 & 1963/Mds/2016 Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 The Assistant Commissioner of v. M/s.Jahan Leather Exports, Income Tax, No.103, Bazaar Street, Non Corporate Circle -22, Pallavaram, No.7, Ramakrishna Street, Chennai – 600 045. West Tambaram, Chennai – 600 045. PAN : AAEFJ3206B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1964/…

DCIT 28(3), Navi Mumbai vs. S.R.M Agro Foods, Navi Mumbai

ITA 7397/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2016AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Mitesh ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri N. Sathya Moorthy-DR
Section 2Section 2(22)(e)Section 22(22)(e)Section 254(1)

…have PE in India,that the services were rendered outside India. In our opinion, considering these facts the assessee had rightly not deducted tax at source for making the payments to the non-resident agents. We find that in the case of Faizan Shoes Pvt. Ltd.(367 ITR 155)the Hon’ble Madras High Court has dealt the issue of deduction of tax at source with regard to the payment made to foreign entities.The facts of the case were that the assessee was engaged in the leather business.For the AY.2009-10,it entered into an agency agreement with a non-resident agent to secure orders from various customers,including reta…

Dignity Innovations, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 265/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. M. Karanakuran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Radhakrishnan, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार",लेखा सद"य एवं "ीजी. पवन कुमार,"या"यकसद"यकेसम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.265 & 266/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years : 2011-12 & 2012-2013. Dignity Innovations, Vs. ITO, Business Ward XIII(2)/ G-15, 1st Main Road, ACIT, Non –Corporate Circle 7(1), Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 058. [PAN AAFFD 9329L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri. M. Karanak…

Pahilajrai Jaikishan, Mumbai vs. DCIT 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 994/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

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

Section 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 40

…the Hon'ble High Court held that the payment of commission cannot be considered as fees for technical services in terms of section 9(1)(vii) so as to call for any deduction of tax at source. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT v. Faizan Shoes (P) Ltd. [2014] 367 ITR 155/226 Taxman 115/48 taxmann.com 48, has also held that no disallowance can be made u/s 40a(i) in respect of commission paid to non-resident agent for providing services outside India. 14. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that we are dealing with an appeal against the order passed u/s 263 of the Act. It is settled legal position that there…

Asst CIT 19(3), Mumbai vs. Pahilajrai Jaikishin, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1562/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

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

Section 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 40

…the Hon'ble High Court held that the payment of commission cannot be considered as fees for technical services in terms of section 9(1)(vii) so as to call for any deduction of tax at source. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT v. Faizan Shoes (P) Ltd. [2014] 367 ITR 155/226 Taxman 115/48 taxmann.com 48, has also held that no disallowance can be made u/s 40a(i) in respect of commission paid to non-resident agent for providing services outside India. 14. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that we are dealing with an appeal against the order passed u/s 263 of the Act. It is settled legal position that there…

DCIT vs. Treads Direct Limited, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2941/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Philip George, Advocate
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)

…lso taken by the Mumbai Bench in the case of Vilas N. Tamhankar in ITA No.4522/Mum/2013 for the assessment year 2009-2010, vide order dated 21.11.2014, and same view was also taken by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Faizan Shoes Pvt. Ltd, 367 ITR 155 (Mad) and further in the case of Brakes India Ltd. vs. DCIT (LTU) (144 ITD 403) the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, it was held that 47. In our opinion, nature of services mentioned above will come not within the definition of “fees for technical services” given under explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. By virtue of such services, t…

Treadsdirect Limited, Coimbatore vs. JCIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2794/CHNY/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2015AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Philip George, Advocate
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)

…lso taken by the Mumbai Bench in the case of Vilas N. Tamhankar in ITA No.4522/Mum/2013 for the assessment year 2009-2010, vide order dated 21.11.2014, and same view was also taken by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Faizan Shoes Pvt. Ltd, 367 ITR 155 (Mad) and further in the case of Brakes India Ltd. vs. DCIT (LTU) (144 ITD 403) the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, it was held that 47. In our opinion, nature of services mentioned above will come not within the definition of “fees for technical services” given under explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. By virtue of such services, t…

Srivathsa Industries, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1562/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1562/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S Srivathsa Industries, The Assistant Commissioner Of C/O Sh. T.N. Seetharaman, V. Income Tax, Advocate, Business Circle Xii, #384, (Old No.196), Lloyds Road, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 086. Pan : Aaafs 9220 L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Seetharaman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. B. Nischal, JCIT
Section 133(6)

…de to foreign agents is not taxable in India, hence, the assessee is not liable to deduct tax under any of the provisions of Income-tax Act. The Ld.counsel placed his reliance on the judgment of the Madras High Court in CIT v. Faizan Shoes Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 155. 11. On the contrary, Dr. B. Nischal, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the assessee admittedly paid 6 I.T.A. No.1562/Mds/15 commission to foreign agents. According to the Ld. D.R., the assessee is depending upon the agents outside India in order to conduct its business. The service of the agents is required for managing the…

M/S J K Fabrics Bangalore Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 714/BANG/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Oct 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Korra Meghanath Chowhan, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 195Section 195(1)Section 2(30)Section 40Section 5(2)Section 6Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

…he Hon’ble High Court held that the payment of commission cannot be considered as fees for technical services in terms of section 9(1)(vii) so as to call for any deduction of tax at source. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT vs. Faizan Shoes (P) Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 155 / 226 Taxman 115 / 48 taxmann.com 48, has also held that no disallowance can be made u/s 40a(i) in respect of commission paid to non-resident agent for providing services outside India.” 18. The assessee also relied on the decision of DIT v. Panalfa Auto Elektrik Ltd. [ 2014] 49 taxmann.com 412 (Delhi). 19. The ld. DR, on the other hand, relied…

ACIT, Chennai vs. M.M.Forgings Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2679/CHNY/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2679/Mds/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011 -2012)

For Appellant: Shri. Krishnamurthy, CITFor Respondent: Shri. Philip George, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 801A(4)Section 80I

…taken by the Mumbai Bench in the case of Vilas N. Tamhankar in ITA No.4522/Mum/2013 for the assessment year 2009-2010, vide order dated 21.11.2014, and same view was also taken by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Faizan Shoes Pvt. Ltd, 367 ITR 155 (Mad) and further in the case of Brakes India Ltd. vs. DCIT (LTU) (144 ITD 403) the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, it was held that 47. In our opinion, nature of services mentioned above will come not within the definition of “fees for technical services” given under explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. By virtue of such services,…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Addison & Company Ltd., Chennai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1744/CHNY/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Feb 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri S. S. Godara] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1744/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri N. Madhavan, JCITFor Respondent: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

…al services u/s 9(1)(vii). There is no evidence forthcoming in support of this plea so far as element of technical services rendered by the export agents is concerned. We find that the hon'ble jurisdictional high court in CIT vs Faizan Shoes Pvt. Ltd. [2014]367 ITR 155 (Mad) has held that such export commission payments are not in the nature of fee for technical I.T.A.No.1744/13 :- 4 -: services. The Revenue fails to point out any distinction on facts. Therefore, we uphold the CIT(A)’s findings. The Revenue’s ground is rejected. This leaves us with the second issue of disallowance of 7. development expens…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Isis Exports P Ltd., Chennai

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 1964/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Feb 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri S. S. Godara] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1963/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri N. Madhavan, JCITFor Respondent: Mrs. S. Srividya, CA
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 195(2)Section 40

…element in procurement of export orders. It is evident that the assessee’s overseas export agents have merely collected export orders in lieu of direct remittances. We find that the hon'ble jurisdictional high court in CIT vs Faizan Shoes Pvt. Ltd. [2014] 367 ITR 155 has held in identical circumstances that such an export commission payment does not amount to ‘fee for technical services’. The Revenue heavily relies on the case law of Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh vs CIT - 239 ITR 589(SC). The hon'ble apex court has itself distinguished the said case law in GE India Technology Cen. P. Ltd vs CIT…

ACIT, Chennai vs. India Shoes Exports P. Ltd., Chennai

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 1963/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Feb 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri S. S. Godara] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1963/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri N. Madhavan, JCITFor Respondent: Mrs. S. Srividya, CA
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 195(2)Section 40

…element in procurement of export orders. It is evident that the assessee’s overseas export agents have merely collected export orders in lieu of direct remittances. We find that the hon'ble jurisdictional high court in CIT vs Faizan Shoes Pvt. Ltd. [2014] 367 ITR 155 has held in identical circumstances that such an export commission payment does not amount to ‘fee for technical services’. The Revenue heavily relies on the case law of Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh vs CIT - 239 ITR 589(SC). The hon'ble apex court has itself distinguished the said case law in GE India Technology Cen. P. Ltd vs CIT…