CIT v. Toshoku Ltd.

125 ITR 525Supreme Court of India1980#295 most cited

What is CIT v. Toshoku Ltd. authority for?

A non-resident commission agent is not chargeable to tax in India on commission income if no business operations are carried out in India. Consequently, no TDS is required under Section 195 on such payments.

270

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Toshoku Ltd. · Toshoku Ltd. · Section 9(1)(i) · Section 195 · Section 40(a)(i) · non-resident commission agent · sales commission taxable in India · business connection · TDS on non-residents · DTAA override · deemed to accrue or arise

Sections most often in play

Section 40(a)(i)Section 195Section 37(1)Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(vii)Section 115JBSection 1961

Issues it is cited on

section 5(2)(b)section 9(1)(i)section 195(1)section 195(2)section 5(2)business connectionsection 40(a)(i)permanent establishmentfees for included servicessection 195section 9(1)section 9(1)(vii)

Judgments citing CIT v. Toshoku Ltd.

M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment year

ITA 1629/CHNY/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1356/Chny/2013, 1626/Chny/2011 & 2310/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2005-06 & 2010-11 M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Assistant Commissioner Of Insurance Company Limited V. Income Tax, “Sundaram Towers” Large Tax Payer Unit, 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1628, 1629 & 1630/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Deputy Commissioner Of Insurance Company Limited V. Income Tax, “Sundaram Towers” Large Tax Payer Unit, 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1666/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06 Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Tax, V. Insurance Company Limited Large Tax Payer Unit, “Sundaram Towers” Chennai. 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 195Section 3Section 40Section 5

…been paid outside India to non-resident brokers or NRRI bank account. Further, payment to brokers in India would not tantamount to receipt in India, having regard to ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Toshoku Ltd. Vs. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 525 (SC), where it was held that amounts credited in favour of non-resident were not at the disposal or control of statutory agent and therefore, cannot be charged to tax on the basis of receipt of income, actual or constructive in the taxable countries. Further, even assuming for a moment, payment to resident brokers is treated as received in India,…

M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment year

ITA 1628/CHNY/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1356/Chny/2013, 1626/Chny/2011 & 2310/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2005-06 & 2010-11 M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Assistant Commissioner Of Insurance Company Limited V. Income Tax, “Sundaram Towers” Large Tax Payer Unit, 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1628, 1629 & 1630/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Deputy Commissioner Of Insurance Company Limited V. Income Tax, “Sundaram Towers” Large Tax Payer Unit, 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1666/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06 Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Tax, V. Insurance Company Limited Large Tax Payer Unit, “Sundaram Towers” Chennai. 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 195Section 3Section 40Section 5

…been paid outside India to non-resident brokers or NRRI bank account. Further, payment to brokers in India would not tantamount to receipt in India, having regard to ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Toshoku Ltd. Vs. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 525 (SC), where it was held that amounts credited in favour of non-resident were not at the disposal or control of statutory agent and therefore, cannot be charged to tax on the basis of receipt of income, actual or constructive in the taxable countries. Further, even assuming for a moment, payment to resident brokers is treated as received in India,…

M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment year

ITA 1626/CHNY/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1356/Chny/2013, 1626/Chny/2011 & 2310/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2005-06 & 2010-11 M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Assistant Commissioner Of Insurance Company Limited V. Income Tax, “Sundaram Towers” Large Tax Payer Unit, 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1628, 1629 & 1630/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Deputy Commissioner Of Insurance Company Limited V. Income Tax, “Sundaram Towers” Large Tax Payer Unit, 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1666/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06 Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Tax, V. Insurance Company Limited Large Tax Payer Unit, “Sundaram Towers” Chennai. 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 195Section 3Section 40Section 5

…been paid outside India to non-resident brokers or NRRI bank account. Further, payment to brokers in India would not tantamount to receipt in India, having regard to ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Toshoku Ltd. Vs. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 525 (SC), where it was held that amounts credited in favour of non-resident were not at the disposal or control of statutory agent and therefore, cannot be charged to tax on the basis of receipt of income, actual or constructive in the taxable countries. Further, even assuming for a moment, payment to resident brokers is treated as received in India,…

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

ITA 1621/CHNY/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha(अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) S.

For Appellant: Mr. Percy J. PardiwallaFor Respondent: Mr. M.Swaminathan, Sr.Standing
Section 195Section 3Section 40Section 5

…een paid outside India to non-resident brokers or NRRI bank account. Further, payment to brokers in India would not tantamount to receipt in India, having regard to ratio of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Toshoku Ltd. Vs. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 525 (SC), where it was held that amounts credited in favour of non- resident were not at the disposal or control of statutory agent and therefore, cannot be charged to tax on the basis of receipt of income, actual or constructive in the taxable countries. Further, even assuming for a moment, payment to resident brokers is treated as received in India…

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

ITA 1620/CHNY/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha(अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) S.

For Appellant: Mr. Percy J. PardiwallaFor Respondent: Mr. M.Swaminathan, Sr.Standing
Section 195Section 3Section 40Section 5

…een paid outside India to non-resident brokers or NRRI bank account. Further, payment to brokers in India would not tantamount to receipt in India, having regard to ratio of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Toshoku Ltd. Vs. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 525 (SC), where it was held that amounts credited in favour of non- resident were not at the disposal or control of statutory agent and therefore, cannot be charged to tax on the basis of receipt of income, actual or constructive in the taxable countries. Further, even assuming for a moment, payment to resident brokers is treated as received in India…

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai

ITA 40/CHNY/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha(अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) S.

For Appellant: Mr. Percy J. PardiwallaFor Respondent: Mr. M.Swaminathan, Sr.Standing
Section 195Section 3Section 40Section 5

…een paid outside India to non-resident brokers or NRRI bank account. Further, payment to brokers in India would not tantamount to receipt in India, having regard to ratio of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Toshoku Ltd. Vs. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 525 (SC), where it was held that amounts credited in favour of non- resident were not at the disposal or control of statutory agent and therefore, cannot be charged to tax on the basis of receipt of income, actual or constructive in the taxable countries. Further, even assuming for a moment, payment to resident brokers is treated as received in India…

M/S. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

ITA 2146/CHNY/2008[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha(अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) S.

For Appellant: Mr. Percy J. PardiwallaFor Respondent: Mr. M.Swaminathan, Sr.Standing
Section 195Section 3Section 40Section 5

…een paid outside India to non-resident brokers or NRRI bank account. Further, payment to brokers in India would not tantamount to receipt in India, having regard to ratio of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Toshoku Ltd. Vs. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 525 (SC), where it was held that amounts credited in favour of non- resident were not at the disposal or control of statutory agent and therefore, cannot be charged to tax on the basis of receipt of income, actual or constructive in the taxable countries. Further, even assuming for a moment, payment to resident brokers is treated as received in India…

ACIT Ltu 2, Chennai vs. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai

ITA 950/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha(अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) S.

For Appellant: Mr. Percy J. PardiwallaFor Respondent: Mr. M.Swaminathan, Sr.Standing
Section 195Section 3Section 40Section 5

…een paid outside India to non-resident brokers or NRRI bank account. Further, payment to brokers in India would not tantamount to receipt in India, having regard to ratio of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Toshoku Ltd. Vs. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 525 (SC), where it was held that amounts credited in favour of non- resident were not at the disposal or control of statutory agent and therefore, cannot be charged to tax on the basis of receipt of income, actual or constructive in the taxable countries. Further, even assuming for a moment, payment to resident brokers is treated as received in India…

ACIT Ltu 2, Chennai vs. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai

ITA 949/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha(अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) S.

For Appellant: Mr. Percy J. PardiwallaFor Respondent: Mr. M.Swaminathan, Sr.Standing
Section 195Section 3Section 40Section 5

…een paid outside India to non-resident brokers or NRRI bank account. Further, payment to brokers in India would not tantamount to receipt in India, having regard to ratio of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Toshoku Ltd. Vs. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 525 (SC), where it was held that amounts credited in favour of non- resident were not at the disposal or control of statutory agent and therefore, cannot be charged to tax on the basis of receipt of income, actual or constructive in the taxable countries. Further, even assuming for a moment, payment to resident brokers is treated as received in India…

M/S Cholamandalam Ms General Insusrance Company Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Parge Tax Payer Unit 2

ITA 784/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha(अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) S.

For Appellant: Mr. Percy J. PardiwallaFor Respondent: Mr. M.Swaminathan, Sr.Standing
Section 195Section 3Section 40Section 5

…een paid outside India to non-resident brokers or NRRI bank account. Further, payment to brokers in India would not tantamount to receipt in India, having regard to ratio of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Toshoku Ltd. Vs. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 525 (SC), where it was held that amounts credited in favour of non- resident were not at the disposal or control of statutory agent and therefore, cannot be charged to tax on the basis of receipt of income, actual or constructive in the taxable countries. Further, even assuming for a moment, payment to resident brokers is treated as received in India…

M/S Cholamandalam Ms General Insusrance Company Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Parge Tax Payer Unit 2

ITA 783/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha(अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) S.

For Appellant: Mr. Percy J. PardiwallaFor Respondent: Mr. M.Swaminathan, Sr.Standing
Section 195Section 3Section 40Section 5

…een paid outside India to non-resident brokers or NRRI bank account. Further, payment to brokers in India would not tantamount to receipt in India, having regard to ratio of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Toshoku Ltd. Vs. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 525 (SC), where it was held that amounts credited in favour of non- resident were not at the disposal or control of statutory agent and therefore, cannot be charged to tax on the basis of receipt of income, actual or constructive in the taxable countries. Further, even assuming for a moment, payment to resident brokers is treated as received in India…

M/S Cholamandalam Ms General Insusrance Company Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Parge Tax Payer Unit 2

ITA 782/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha(अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) S.

For Appellant: Mr. Percy J. PardiwallaFor Respondent: Mr. M.Swaminathan, Sr.Standing
Section 195Section 3Section 40Section 5

…een paid outside India to non-resident brokers or NRRI bank account. Further, payment to brokers in India would not tantamount to receipt in India, having regard to ratio of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Toshoku Ltd. Vs. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 525 (SC), where it was held that amounts credited in favour of non- resident were not at the disposal or control of statutory agent and therefore, cannot be charged to tax on the basis of receipt of income, actual or constructive in the taxable countries. Further, even assuming for a moment, payment to resident brokers is treated as received in India…

ACIT, Chennai vs. United India Insurance Company, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2008-09,

ITA 696/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1673, 1688, 1689, 1691/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. United India Insurance Co. Tax, V. Ltd., Large Tax Payer Unit, 24, Whites Road, Chennai – Chennai. 600 014. [Pan: Aaacu-5552-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 1693/Chny/2011, 36/Chny/2014 & 696/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. United India Insurance Co. Tax, V. Ltd., Large Tax Payer Unit, 24, Whites Road, Chennai – Chennai. 600 014. [Pan: Aaacu-5552-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. S. Sundararaman, Ca Department Represented By : Shri. M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel & Ms. V. Pushpa, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.08.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R

Section 195Section 195(1)Section 40Section 5(2)(b)

…been paid outside India to non-resident brokers or NRRI bank account. Further, payment to brokers in India would not tantamount to receipt in India, having regard to ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Toshoku Ltd. Vs. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 525 (SC), where it was held that amounts credited in favour of non-resident were not at the disposal or control of statutory agent and therefore, cannot be charged to tax on the basis of receipt of income, actual or constructive in the taxable countries. Further, even assuming for a moment, payment to resident brokers is treated as received in India,…

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2008-09,

ITA 36/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1673, 1688, 1689, 1691/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. United India Insurance Co. Tax, V. Ltd., Large Tax Payer Unit, 24, Whites Road, Chennai – Chennai. 600 014. [Pan: Aaacu-5552-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 1693/Chny/2011, 36/Chny/2014 & 696/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. United India Insurance Co. Tax, V. Ltd., Large Tax Payer Unit, 24, Whites Road, Chennai – Chennai. 600 014. [Pan: Aaacu-5552-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. S. Sundararaman, Ca Department Represented By : Shri. M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel & Ms. V. Pushpa, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.08.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R

Section 195Section 195(1)Section 40Section 5(2)(b)

…been paid outside India to non-resident brokers or NRRI bank account. Further, payment to brokers in India would not tantamount to receipt in India, having regard to ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Toshoku Ltd. Vs. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 525 (SC), where it was held that amounts credited in favour of non-resident were not at the disposal or control of statutory agent and therefore, cannot be charged to tax on the basis of receipt of income, actual or constructive in the taxable countries. Further, even assuming for a moment, payment to resident brokers is treated as received in India,…

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, Chennai vs. Addl. CIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment year

ITA 2310/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1356/Chny/2013, 1626/Chny/2011 & 2310/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2005-06 & 2010-11 M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Assistant Commissioner Of Insurance Company Limited V. Income Tax, “Sundaram Towers” Large Tax Payer Unit, 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1628, 1629 & 1630/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Deputy Commissioner Of Insurance Company Limited V. Income Tax, “Sundaram Towers” Large Tax Payer Unit, 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1666/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06 Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Tax, V. Insurance Company Limited Large Tax Payer Unit, “Sundaram Towers” Chennai. 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 195Section 3Section 40Section 5

…been paid outside India to non-resident brokers or NRRI bank account. Further, payment to brokers in India would not tantamount to receipt in India, having regard to ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Toshoku Ltd. Vs. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 525 (SC), where it was held that amounts credited in favour of non-resident were not at the disposal or control of statutory agent and therefore, cannot be charged to tax on the basis of receipt of income, actual or constructive in the taxable countries. Further, even assuming for a moment, payment to resident brokers is treated as received in India,…

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

ITA 2276/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha(अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) S.

For Appellant: Mr. Percy J. PardiwallaFor Respondent: Mr. M.Swaminathan, Sr.Standing
Section 195Section 3Section 40Section 5

…een paid outside India to non-resident brokers or NRRI bank account. Further, payment to brokers in India would not tantamount to receipt in India, having regard to ratio of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Toshoku Ltd. Vs. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 525 (SC), where it was held that amounts credited in favour of non- resident were not at the disposal or control of statutory agent and therefore, cannot be charged to tax on the basis of receipt of income, actual or constructive in the taxable countries. Further, even assuming for a moment, payment to resident brokers is treated as received in India…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd., Chennai

ITA 1366/CHNY/2013[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha(अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) S.

For Appellant: Mr. Percy J. PardiwallaFor Respondent: Mr. M.Swaminathan, Sr.Standing
Section 195Section 3Section 40Section 5

…een paid outside India to non-resident brokers or NRRI bank account. Further, payment to brokers in India would not tantamount to receipt in India, having regard to ratio of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Toshoku Ltd. Vs. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 525 (SC), where it was held that amounts credited in favour of non- resident were not at the disposal or control of statutory agent and therefore, cannot be charged to tax on the basis of receipt of income, actual or constructive in the taxable countries. Further, even assuming for a moment, payment to resident brokers is treated as received in India…

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment year

ITA 1356/CHNY/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1356/Chny/2013, 1626/Chny/2011 & 2310/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2005-06 & 2010-11 M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Assistant Commissioner Of Insurance Company Limited V. Income Tax, “Sundaram Towers” Large Tax Payer Unit, 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1628, 1629 & 1630/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Deputy Commissioner Of Insurance Company Limited V. Income Tax, “Sundaram Towers” Large Tax Payer Unit, 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1666/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06 Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Tax, V. Insurance Company Limited Large Tax Payer Unit, “Sundaram Towers” Chennai. 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aabcr-7106-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 195Section 3Section 40Section 5

…been paid outside India to non-resident brokers or NRRI bank account. Further, payment to brokers in India would not tantamount to receipt in India, having regard to ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Toshoku Ltd. Vs. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 525 (SC), where it was held that amounts credited in favour of non-resident were not at the disposal or control of statutory agent and therefore, cannot be charged to tax on the basis of receipt of income, actual or constructive in the taxable countries. Further, even assuming for a moment, payment to resident brokers is treated as received in India,…

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

ITA 1350/CHNY/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha(अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) S.

For Appellant: Mr. Percy J. PardiwallaFor Respondent: Mr. M.Swaminathan, Sr.Standing
Section 195Section 3Section 40Section 5

…een paid outside India to non-resident brokers or NRRI bank account. Further, payment to brokers in India would not tantamount to receipt in India, having regard to ratio of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Toshoku Ltd. Vs. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 525 (SC), where it was held that amounts credited in favour of non- resident were not at the disposal or control of statutory agent and therefore, cannot be charged to tax on the basis of receipt of income, actual or constructive in the taxable countries. Further, even assuming for a moment, payment to resident brokers is treated as received in India…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai

ITA 1759/CHNY/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha(अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) S.

For Appellant: Mr. Percy J. PardiwallaFor Respondent: Mr. M.Swaminathan, Sr.Standing
Section 195Section 3Section 40Section 5

…een paid outside India to non-resident brokers or NRRI bank account. Further, payment to brokers in India would not tantamount to receipt in India, having regard to ratio of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Toshoku Ltd. Vs. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 525 (SC), where it was held that amounts credited in favour of non- resident were not at the disposal or control of statutory agent and therefore, cannot be charged to tax on the basis of receipt of income, actual or constructive in the taxable countries. Further, even assuming for a moment, payment to resident brokers is treated as received in India…