CIT v. Gujarat Reclaim & Rubber Products Ltd.

383 ITR 236High Court2016#2825 most cited

What is CIT v. Gujarat Reclaim & Rubber Products Ltd. authority for?

Where commission paid to a non-resident agent is not incurred in India, tax is not required to be deducted at source from such commission.

42

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Gujarat Reclaim & Rubber Products Ltd. · section 195 · TDS · non-resident agent · commission payment · incurred in India · tax deduction at source

Also reported as

79 Taxmann.com 352

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 195Section 37(1)Section 40(a)(i)Section 43B(f)Section 68Section 69CSection 1962

Issues it is cited on

section 5(2)(b)section 9(2)section 9(1)(vii)(b)section 144c(10)section 2(11)make available clausesection 5(2)section 195(1)sanction under section 151section 40a(i)section 9(i)tax residency certificate

Judgments citing CIT v. Gujarat Reclaim & Rubber Products Ltd.

Urai Impex P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(3)(4), Mumbai

ITA 367/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasiaassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Urai Impex Pvt. Ltd., Ito-8(3)(4)/(New)Ito- 53, Apollo Industrial Estate, 11(1)(4), 202, 2Nd Floor, Off. Mahakali Caves Road, Vs. Andheri (East), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 093 M.K. Marg, Pan: Aaacu 5802D Mumbai – 400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri R.N. Vasani, A.R. & Shri V.H. Vasani, A.R. Revenue By : Smt. Hemalatha, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2017 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri R.N. Vasani, A.R. & Shri V.H. Vasani, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Hemalatha, D.R

…cision of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Rapid Pack Engg. (P.) Ltd. 46 taxmann.com 330. In support of his case, the Ld. A.R. further relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat Reclaim and Rubber Products Ltd. 383 ITR 236 (Bom.) 4. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the order of the Revenue authorities 5. I have heard the rival contentions of both the parties. I find that the issue in controversy is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat Reclaim and Rubber Products Ltd. 383 ITR 236 (Bom.) wherein the Hon’ble Bomb…

Refrigerated Distributors P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4506/MUM/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2016AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am M/S.Refrigerated Distributors Vs. Dcit- 2(3)(1), Mumbai Pvt. Ltd., 410, Emca House, Shahid Bhagatsingh Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aabcr1497A Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 40

…services were rendered outside India, hence, no tax was deducted at source by the assessee in respect of the payment of commission. The issue under consideration is squarely covered by the Bombay High Court in case of Gujarat Reclaim and Rubber Products Ltd., 383 ITR 236 (Bombay), wherein it has been clearly held that no tax is required to be deducted on the commission paid to foreign agents since the said income does not accrue or arise in India. 7. I also found that reliance placed by the AO on the Panaji Bench decision in the case of Sesa Resources Ltd., (supra) is erroneous in so far as said order of the Trib…