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 366,314 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.

DCIT, 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 1693/CHNY/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

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,…

DCIT, 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 1691/CHNY/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2006-07

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,…

DCIT, 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 1689/CHNY/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2005-06

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,…

DCIT, 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 1688/CHNY/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2004-05

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,…

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

ITA 1676/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…

Alkyl Amines Chemicals Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (OSD) 10(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1019/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Alkyl Amines Chemicals Ld., V. Dcit (Osd)-10(3) 401-407, Nirman Vyapar Kendra Room No. 517, 4Th Floor Plot No. 10, Sector – 17 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400703 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaaca6783F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Shruti Agarwal Department By : Shri Mehul Jain

For Appellant: Ms. Shruti AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 195Section 40

…said that the commission income received by the foreign commission agents is deemed to accrue or arise in India. In this regard, the Appellant would lie to place its reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Toshoka Limited (125 ITR 525), wherein it has been held that "that the non-resident did not carry on any business operation in the taxable territories: they acted as selling agents outside India. The receipt in India of the sale proceeds of the tobacco remitted or caused to be remitted by the purchasers from abroad did not amount to an operation carried out by the non- resid…

DCIT (It) 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Credit Suisse (Singapore) Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue for assessment year 2015–16

ITA 7262/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala a/wFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan, Sr. DR
Section 250

…were rendered by the assessee outside India and no service was rendered within India. Thus, the offshore distribution income is not taxable in India. The learned Sr. Counsel by referring to the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in CIT vs Toshoku Ltd., [1980] 125 ITR 525 (SC) submitted that the offshore distribution income earned by the assessee, in the present case, is similar in nature to agency commission income, which was held to be not chargeable to tax in India in the aforesaid decision since the non- resident taxpayer did not carry out any business operation in India and the income was earned for services…

DCIT(It)- 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Credit Suisse (Singapore) Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue for assessment year 2015–16

ITA 6098/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala a/wFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan, Sr. DR
Section 250

…were rendered by the assessee outside India and no service was rendered within India. Thus, the offshore distribution income is not taxable in India. The learned Sr. Counsel by referring to the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in CIT vs Toshoku Ltd., [1980] 125 ITR 525 (SC) submitted that the offshore distribution income earned by the assessee, in the present case, is similar in nature to agency commission income, which was held to be not chargeable to tax in India in the aforesaid decision since the non- resident taxpayer did not carry out any business operation in India and the income was earned for services…

DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Surat vs. M/S. J K Paper Limited, Surat

In the result, all these three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6/SRT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 10(1)Section 115JSection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)

…the addition made on account of Non deduction of tax on foreign remittance ofRs.17,47,668/-.The Ld. Sr. Counsel for the assessee submits that ld.CIT(A) while granting relief to the assessee followed the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs Toshoku Ltd (125 ITR 525 SC) and further Tribunal inassessee’s own case for A.Y. 2010-11 to 2012-13 in order dated 04.11.2020 allowed similar relief to the assessee by dismissing the identical ground of appeal. The ld. Counsel further submits that in A.Y. 2014-15, similar issue was decided in favour of assessee in ITA No. 365/Srt/2017. 41. On the other hand, the ld.CIT-D…

DCIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Surat vs. J K Paper Ltd, Surat

In the result, all these three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 157/SRT/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 10(1)Section 115JSection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)

…the addition made on account of Non deduction of tax on foreign remittance ofRs.17,47,668/-.The Ld. Sr. Counsel for the assessee submits that ld.CIT(A) while granting relief to the assessee followed the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs Toshoku Ltd (125 ITR 525 SC) and further Tribunal inassessee’s own case for A.Y. 2010-11 to 2012-13 in order dated 04.11.2020 allowed similar relief to the assessee by dismissing the identical ground of appeal. The ld. Counsel further submits that in A.Y. 2014-15, similar issue was decided in favour of assessee in ITA No. 365/Srt/2017. 41. On the other hand, the ld.CIT-D…

DCIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Surat vs. J K Paper Ltd, Surat

In the result, all these three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 156/SRT/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 10(1)Section 115JSection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)

…the addition made on account of Non deduction of tax on foreign remittance ofRs.17,47,668/-.The Ld. Sr. Counsel for the assessee submits that ld.CIT(A) while granting relief to the assessee followed the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs Toshoku Ltd (125 ITR 525 SC) and further Tribunal inassessee’s own case for A.Y. 2010-11 to 2012-13 in order dated 04.11.2020 allowed similar relief to the assessee by dismissing the identical ground of appeal. The ld. Counsel further submits that in A.Y. 2014-15, similar issue was decided in favour of assessee in ITA No. 365/Srt/2017. 41. On the other hand, the ld.CIT-D…

Jay Chemical Industries Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)2, Ahmedabad

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1724/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vayawala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajdeep Singh, Sr.D.R
Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 40Section 92C

…d been deleted by the ld. CIT(A). He therefore held that the issue was squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) in the preceding years. He further relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Toshoku Ltd. 125 ITR 525 for the proposition that where non-residents commission agents rendered services outside India , the income did not accrue in India. As for the observation of the A.O. that as per the provisions of Section 9(1)(i) of the Act, the income could be said to accrue or arise in India, the ld. CIT(A) held that in the absence of any fact on record to ind…

DCIT, C-4, Jaipur vs. M/S. Jlc Electromet Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 166/JPR/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Apr 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra GargieyaFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…1 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ]U;kf;d lnL; ,oaJh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No.166/JP/2020 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2016-17 cuke M/s. JLC Electromet Pvt. Ltd. The DCIT Circle-4 Vs. E-153-A, Road No. 11-H, Jaipur VKI Area, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCJ 8786 A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Mahendra Gargieya jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by…

Asstt. CIT -3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Roche Diagnostic India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 908/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 908 & 909/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2012-13) बिधम/ Acit Circle-3(1)(1) M/S. Rideema Toll Pvt. Ltd. Room No.607, 6Th Floor, M/S. Roche Diagnostic India Pvt. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Ltd. 501-B, 5Th Floor, Silver Utopia Road, Mumbai-400020. Cardinal Gracious Road, Chakala Andheri (E), Mumbai-400069. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaca0266H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri T. Shankar (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: Shri Nitesh Joshi सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -18, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys.2013-14 & 2012-13. Ita. No.909/Mum/2021 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 18.02.2020 Passed By The Cit(A)-18, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13. 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - "1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Right In Deleting The Addition Made On

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar (Sr. AR)
Section 143(1)Section 195Section 40

…of “consultancy services”. Coming to taxability of the commission receipts in the hands of the aforementioned non-resident entity and applicability of section 195, the observations of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Toshoku A.Ys.2013-14 & 2012-13 Ltd. (125 ITR 525] also referred to by the appellant company are noteworthy, which reads as, “That it could not be said that the making of the entries in the books of debtor amounted to receipt, actual or constructive, by the non- resident sales agents as the amounts so credited in their favour were not at their disposal or control; they could not, therefore, be…

M/S Tecnotree Convergence Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3158/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Srinath Sadanala, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…, the question that needs to be addressed is whether the income earned by the foreign commission agents accrues or arises from any business connection in India. In this regard, the Hon'ble Apex Court in its decision in the case of CIT Vs. Toshoku Ltd., (1980) 125 ITR 525 (SC) held that the commission amounts which were earned by non-residents for the services rendered outside India cannot be deemed to be incomes that have either accrued or arisen in India. 10.5.8 The Explanations introduced to explain and expand the scope of "business connection" in Section 9(1) of the Act are as under:- "[Explanation 2.--For the…

M/S. Tecnotree Convergence Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3157/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Srinath Sadanala, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…, the question that needs to be addressed is whether the income earned by the foreign commission agents accrues or arises from any business connection in India. In this regard, the Hon'ble Apex Court in its decision in the case of CIT Vs. Toshoku Ltd., (1980) 125 ITR 525 (SC) held that the commission amounts which were earned by non-residents for the services rendered outside India cannot be deemed to be incomes that have either accrued or arisen in India. 10.5.8 The Explanations introduced to explain and expand the scope of "business connection" in Section 9(1) of the Act are as under:- "[Explanation 2.--For the…

M/S. Tecnotree Convergence Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3156/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Srinath Sadanala, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…, the question that needs to be addressed is whether the income earned by the foreign commission agents accrues or arises from any business connection in India. In this regard, the Hon'ble Apex Court in its decision in the case of CIT Vs. Toshoku Ltd., (1980) 125 ITR 525 (SC) held that the commission amounts which were earned by non-residents for the services rendered outside India cannot be deemed to be incomes that have either accrued or arisen in India. 10.5.8 The Explanations introduced to explain and expand the scope of "business connection" in Section 9(1) of the Act are as under:- "[Explanation 2.--For the…

ITO, Ward- 47(3), New Delhi vs. Attar Singh, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5891/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing) Ito Vs. Attar Singh Ward – 47(3) Prop. Meet Exports, 646 New Delhi 1St Floor, Gali, Ghanteshwar, Katra Neel Chandani Chawk, Pan No. Ammps 0771 Q New Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By --None-- Revenue By Ms. Kirti Sanakrtyan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.11.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.07.2017 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 16, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under :

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 195Section 197Section 40

…redecessor in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2011-12 had come to the conclusion that the payment made by the assessee was out of the purview of Section 195 of the Act and he by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Toshoku Ltd. 125 ITR 525 and other decisions, deleted the addition. CIT(A) by relying on the decision of his predecessor in assessee’s own case and the other decisions of the Tribunal cited in his order, deleted the addition. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Revenue is now before us. 8. Before us, Learned DR supported the order of AO. 9. We have heard the Learned DR a…

Ajay Arora, Kanpur vs. Addl. CIT, Kanpur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 90/LKW/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…mission income allowed to it by the assessee as being regarded as having accrued or arisen in India, or deemed to be so, either u/s. 9(1)(i) or u/s. 9(1)(vii)(b). Reliance is placed onCIT v. R.D. Aggarwal & Co. [1965] 56 ITR 20 (SC);CIT v. Toshoku Ltd. [1980] 125 ITR 525 (SC); andGE India Technology Centre (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2010] 327 ITR 456 (SC), besides on theorder by the Agra Bench of the Tribunal in Asst. CIT v. Manufax India (in ITA Nos. 434 & 446/Agra/2015, dated 11.4.2018/copy on record). 3. I have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. 3.1 At the outset it needs to be clarified that where…

ACIT, Circle- 47(1), New Delhi vs. J. Kishore Exports, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1551/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Acit, Vs J.Kishore Exports, Circle-47(1), 558, Katra Ishwar Bhawan, New Delhi. Khari Baoli, New Delhi-110006. Pan-Aagfj9713M Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Ashwani Kalia, Ca Respondent By Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 01.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 23.11.2021

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 195(2)

…, the commission paid to foreign agents for services rendered outside India was not taxable in India. The withdrawal of Board circulars cannot change the statutory provisions as provided for in the Act. The ITAT followed the case of CIT v. Toshoku Ltd. [1980] 125 ITR 525 (SC) wherein a non resident acting as an Agent outside India did not carry on any business operation in India. In the said case, the Supreme Court held that sales commission which were earned by the non-resident for services rendered outside India could not be deemed to be income which had either accrued or arisen in India. xii) Mumbai Bench in t…