CIT v. Kikani Exports (P.) Ltd.

369 ITR 96High Court2014#2741 most cited

What is CIT v. Kikani Exports (P.) Ltd. authority for?

Commission paid to non-resident agents for services rendered outside India is not taxable in India as income not accruing or arising in India and not being fees for technical services. Consequently, no tax deduction at source under Section 195 is required, and non-deduction does not attract disallowance under Section 40(a)(i)/(ia).

43

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Kikani Exports · Kikani Exports · Section 195 · Section 195(6) · Section 40(a)(ia) · Section 9(1)(vii) · commission to foreign agents · services rendered outside India · income not taxable in India · non-deduction of tax · export commission · fees for technical services

Also reported as

49 Taxmann.com 601232 Taxmann 255

Judgments citing CIT v. Kikani Exports (P.) Ltd.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, TIRUNELVELI, TIRUNELVELI vs. M/S.LOYAL TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED, KOVILPATTI

In the result, both appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 193/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.192/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2017-18 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.193/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2018-19 V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S.Loyal Textile Mills Tax, Limited, Circle-1, New No.21, Old No.4, Tirunelveli. Mill Street, Kovilpatti, Tamil Nadu-628 501. [Pan: Aaacl2632C] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.Bhupendran, Advocate. : प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By Mr.Krishna Murthy At, Jcit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22.10.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.10.2025

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40Section 801ASection 80ISection 92CSection 92F

…ign agents for services rendered outside India. No part of such income accrued or arose in India, and hence it was not chargeable to tax in India. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT v. Faizan Shoes (P) Ltd. (supra) and CIT v. Kikani Exports (P) Ltd. [(2014) 369 ITR 96 (Mad.)] has categorically held that where services are rendered outside India, section 195 is not attracted. It is undisputed that the assessee has duly complied with the procedural Page 5 of 6 ITA Nos.192 & 193 /Chny/2025 (AY-2017-18 & 2018-19) M/s.Loyal Textile Mills Limited. requirement under section 195(6) by filing Form-15CA and Form-15CB.…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TIRUNELVELI vs. M/S.LOYAL TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED, KOVILPATTI

In the result, both appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 192/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.192/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2017-18 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.193/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2018-19 V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S.Loyal Textile Mills Tax, Limited, Circle-1, New No.21, Old No.4, Tirunelveli. Mill Street, Kovilpatti, Tamil Nadu-628 501. [Pan: Aaacl2632C] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.Bhupendran, Advocate. : प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By Mr.Krishna Murthy At, Jcit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22.10.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.10.2025

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40Section 801ASection 80ISection 92CSection 92F

…ign agents for services rendered outside India. No part of such income accrued or arose in India, and hence it was not chargeable to tax in India. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT v. Faizan Shoes (P) Ltd. (supra) and CIT v. Kikani Exports (P) Ltd. [(2014) 369 ITR 96 (Mad.)] has categorically held that where services are rendered outside India, section 195 is not attracted. It is undisputed that the assessee has duly complied with the procedural Page 5 of 6 ITA Nos.192 & 193 /Chny/2025 (AY-2017-18 & 2018-19) M/s.Loyal Textile Mills Limited. requirement under section 195(6) by filing Form-15CA and Form-15CB.…

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

…of Explanation 2 to Section 195(1) of the Act, both by the Finance Act, 2012, with retrospective effect from 01.04.1962. 15. The issue raised in this case has been the subject matter of the decision, in the recent case, CIT v. Kikani Exports (P.) Ltd. [2014] 369 ITR 96/[2015] 232 Taxman 255/49 taxmann.com 601 (Mad.) wherein the contention of the Revenue has been rejected and assessee has been upheld and the relevant observation reads as under:— '... the services rendered by the non-resident agent could at best be called as a service for completion of the export commitment and would not fall within the definition…

ITO 3(3)2, MUMBAI vs. SHAMROCK PHARMACHEMI P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1774/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1774/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिाम/ Ito 3(3)2, M/S. Shamrock R.No. 602, Pharmachemi Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 83E,Hansraj Pragi Bldg., V. M.K Road, Opp. Dr. E Moses Road, Mumbai 400020 Worli, Mumbai-400018 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacs6290H (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri. Ashim Kumar Modi (Cit- Dr), Shri V. Justin & Ms. Chaitna Ajaria Shri. Bharat L. Gandhi Assessee By: सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 01.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 1774/Mum/2013, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 29.10.2012, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Cit(A)‖) In Appeal Number Cit(A)-7/Ito-3(3)(2)/It-166/11-12, For Assessment Year 2009-10, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 29.12.2011 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called ―The Ao‖) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ―The Act‖) For Ay 2009-10. I.T.A. No.1774/Mum/2013

For Respondent: Shri. Ashim Kumar Modi (CIT-
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 68

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “E” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1774/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिाम/ ITO 3(3)2, M/s. Shamrock R.No. 602, Pharmachemi Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 83E,Hansraj Pragi Bldg., v. M.K Road, Opp. Dr. E Moses Road, Mumbai 400020 Worli, Mumbai-400018 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN: AAACS6290H (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue by: Shri. Ashim Kumar Modi (CIT- DR), Shri V. Justin and Ms. Chaitna Ajaria Shri. Bharat L…

Showing 120 of 43 · Page 1 of 3

CIT v. Kikani Exports (P.) Ltd. (369 ITR 96) — Cited in 43 Judgments | BharatTax