← All Phrases

“TDS on commission”

TDS / TCSSection 194HSection 194H89 judgments

The decision most relied on for TDS on commission is CIT v. Toshoku Ltd. (125 ITR 525), cited in 270 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on TDS on commission

CIT v. Toshoku Ltd.
125 ITR 525 · 1980 · Supreme Court
270
citing judgments

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.

CIT v. Idea Cellular Ltd.
325 ITR 148 · 2010 · High Court
155
citing judgments

Discounts offered to distributors under a tightly controlled relationship constitute commission and are subject to tax deduction at source under Section 194H of the Income-tax Act.

CIT v. Faizan Shoes (P.) Ltd.
367 ITR 155 · 2014 · High Court
139
citing judgments

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.

State Lotteries & Ors. (2001) 249 ITR 186 and Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Association v. Union of India
257 ITR 202 · 2002 · High Court
121
citing judgments

Supplementary commission forional or extra services does not fall within the ambit of Section 194H of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This may affect the applicability of certificates issued under Section 197.

Palam Gas Service v. CIT
394 ITR 300 · 2017 · Supreme Court
110
citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS is mandatory, applying even to amounts already paid and not merely 'payable', based on a purposive construction of the provision, irrespective of the timing of payment or liability.

Hindustan Coca Cola v. CIT
402 ITR 539 · 2018 · High Court
73
citing judgments

Discounts allowed by a business to grow its operations in a competitive market are acceptable and cannot be disallowed. Expenses incurred for business growth in a competitive world are not to be disallowed.

CIT(A) v. Eon Technology Pvt. Ltd.
343 ITR 366 · 2012 · High Court
58
citing judgments

Payments to a non-resident agent for services rendered outside India, where the agent has no permanent establishment (PE) or business connection in India, are not chargeable to tax in India. Consequently, there is no obligation to deduct tax at source under Section 195, and no disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) can be made.

Bharti Cellular Ltd. v. ACIT
354 ITR 507 · 2013 · High Court
55
citing judgments

The Calcutta High Court held that discounts given to distributors for procuring and retaining customers are considered commission, making them subject to TDS under Section 194H, and treating the assessee as being in default for non-deduction.

Judgments citing TDS on commission

Superhouse Limited, Kanpur vs. CIT, International Taxation-3, Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 356/LKW/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos. 356 & 357/Lkw/2024 A.Ys. 2014-15 & A.Ys. 2015-16 Superhouse Limited, 150 Feet Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Road, Jajmau, Kanpur-208010 International Taxation-3, Delhi Pan: Aabcs9328K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. G.C. Srivastava, Adv & Sh. Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: These Two Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Cit, (International Taxation)-3, Delhi Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act For The A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16, Both Dated 29.03.2024, Wherein The Ld. Cit Has Set Aside The Earlier Orders Of The Assessing Officer For Making Of Fresh Orders In Accordance With The Directions Issued By Her. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Because, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit Has Erred In Assuming Jurisdiction Under Section 263 Of The Act & In Doing So, Has Sought To Substitute His Opinion With The Order Under Section 201(1)/201(1A) Passed After Undertaking Extensive & Detailed Consideration Of The Issue By The Ito (Tds). 2. Because, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit Has Erred In Assuming The Jurisdiction Under Section 263 Of The Act Without Appreciating That The Order Under Section 201(1)/201(1A) Passed By The Ito (Tds) Was Unerring & In Consonance With The Settled Principles Of Law. 3. Because, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Impugned Order While Premised On An Illegal Assumption Of Jurisdiction, Further Suffers From Non-Application Of Mind Since The Submissions Of The Assessee Have Not Been Considered [As Illustrated Infra]. A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. G.C. Srivastava, Adv & Sh. KalravFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR
Section 201(1)Section 263Section 90

transactions. We further notice that on 16.03.2021, the assessee submitted a detailed reply to the Assessing Officer explaining why it had not deducted TDS on commission payment made on export sales, under section 195 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In course of the same, it quoted the legal provisions

Mahendrakumar Danmal Mutha, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 7590/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250

filed before the Assessing Officer. Statement of brokerage paid containing names, addresses, PAN, amount paid and TDS deducted was furnished. Ledger account of “TDS on Commission” and “Brokerage and Commission” were also placed on record. Copies of brokerage bills, bank statements evidencing payment and supporting documents in respect of each ... Assessing Officer details of brokerage paid to five parties along with names, addresses and PAN. Ledger accounts of “Brokerage and Commission” and “TDS on Commission” were produced. The payments were made through banking channels after deduction of tax at source. Bank statements evidencing such payments were also placed on record

Alfa Modern Mobiles Private Limited, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Cr Building

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

ITA 5701/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Alfa Modern Mobiles Pvt. Ltd., Vs Ito A-24/2, Naraina Industrial Ward-2(1) Area, Phase-I, C.R. Building New Delhi-110028. Delhi-110001 Pan-Aaica6087C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Pranshu Goel, Ca & Shri Aditya Gupta, Adv. Respondent By Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 04.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 11.02.2026

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 40Section 44ASection 46ASection 69A

Business Solutions & M/s Vision Enterprises giving PAN & bank statements as evidences of payment.  That Receipt of payment of Keyman Insurance.  That Evidences of TDS on commission paid to Amazon.  That Copy of cash book (old Currency) for the period 01-11-2016 to 22-11-2016  That Copy of cash

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Ms. Jagson Colorchem Limited, Phase -II Gidc Estate Vatva

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1437/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Years:2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 30Section 40

Shri Abhijit, the ld. Sr. DR submitted that there is no dispute to the fact that that assessee did not deduct TDS on commission of Rs.5,63,28,206/- paid to foreign agents. He submitted that in view of this default, the provision of section ... Court in the case of Vedanta Limited (146 Taxmann.com 34) (SC). The ld. A.R submitted that the assessee was no liable to deduct TDS on commission payments to the foreign agents, as the services were rendered outside India and no part of income had arisen in India. Under the circumstances

DCIT Central Circle- 7(1), Mumbai vs. Sajjid Amir Khan, Mumbai

In the result, the three appeals of revenue are dismissed and two

ITA 6687/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishι.Τ.Α. Νο. 6685/Mum/2025

Section 133Section 133ASection 195(2)Section 40Section 68

order of Ld. CIT (A) is upheld. 13. Ground No.4 is relating to disallowances made u/s. 40(a)(i) for non- deduction of TDS on commission to M/s Ricami Giuma SNC Di Giulia (IT). The Ld. CIT (A) has deleted the addition after considering the fact that M/s Ricami Giuma

DCIT Central Circle- 7(1), Mumbai vs. Sajjid Amir Khan, Mumbai

In the result, the three appeals of revenue are dismissed and two appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 6686/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

Section 133Section 133ASection 195(2)Section 40Section 68

order of Ld. CIT (A) is upheld. 13. Ground No.4 is relating to disallowances made u/s. 40(a)(i) for non- deduction of TDS on commission to M/s Ricami Giuma SNC Di Giulia (IT). The Ld. CIT (A) has deleted the addition after considering the fact that M/s Ricami Giuma

DCIT Central Circle- 7(1), Mumbai vs. Sajjid Amir Khan, Mumbai

In the result, the three appeals of revenue are dismissed and two appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 6685/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

Section 133Section 133ASection 195(2)Section 40Section 68

order of Ld. CIT (A) is upheld. 13. Ground No.4 is relating to disallowances made u/s. 40(a)(i) for non- deduction of TDS on commission to M/s Ricami Giuma SNC Di Giulia (IT). The Ld. CIT (A) has deleted the addition after considering the fact that M/s Ricami Giuma

Sajjid Amir Khan, Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC-7(1), Mumbai

In the result, the three appeals of revenue are dismissed and two appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 6552/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

Section 133Section 133ASection 195(2)Section 40Section 68

order of Ld. CIT (A) is upheld. 13. Ground No.4 is relating to disallowances made u/s. 40(a)(i) for non- deduction of TDS on commission to M/s Ricami Giuma SNC Di Giulia (IT). The Ld. CIT (A) has deleted the addition after considering the fact that M/s Ricami Giuma

Sajjid Amir Khan, Mumbai vs. ACIT Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, the three appeals of revenue are dismissed and two appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 6546/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

Section 133Section 133ASection 195(2)Section 40Section 68

order of Ld. CIT (A) is upheld. 13. Ground No.4 is relating to disallowances made u/s. 40(a)(i) for non- deduction of TDS on commission to M/s Ricami Giuma SNC Di Giulia (IT). The Ld. CIT (A) has deleted the addition after considering the fact that M/s Ricami Giuma

Parth Garlic, Junagadh vs. Income Tax Officer, Junagadh

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

ITA 645/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri R. D. Lalchandani, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143Section 145

statement. The Page 3 of 5 Parth Garlic assessee firm submitted that the firm is doing the business as Kaccha Adatiya, hence no TDS on commission. The assessee has furnished the vouchers in respect of commission received. Thus, the verifiability of the transaction was in question, and as such assessee

DCIT, Circle 3 4, Mumbai vs. Tata Consultancy Services Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of both, revenue and assessee are partly

ITA 2244/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT DR
Section 92CSection 92C(3)

dissatisfaction r.w.s. 115JB 9. Brand building 10 10 8 -- -- -- expenditure (AMP) 10. Brand Equity 11 11 9 -- -- -- subscription to Tata Sons 11. Non TDS on commission 12 12 10 -- -- - to non-resident 12. Foreign Tax Credit for 13 and 15 and 12 -- -- -- income u/s.10A/AA 17 17 13. General on section

Tata Consultancy Services Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Incometax 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of both, revenue and assessee are partly allowed for all the three assessment years

ITA 1518/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. Advocate and Shri Manish Kumar Kanth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT DR
Section 1Section 92CSection 92C(3)

dissatisfaction r.w.s. 115JB 9. Brand building 10 10 8 -- -- -- expenditure (AMP) 10. Brand Equity 11 11 9 -- -- -- subscription to Tata Sons 11. Non TDS on commission 12 12 10 -- -- -- to non-resident 12. Foreign Tax Credit for 13 and 15 and 12 -- -- -- income u/s.10A/AA 17 17 13. General on section

Tata Consultancy Services Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Incometax 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of both, revenue and assessee are partly

ITA 1517/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT DR
Section 92CSection 92C(3)

dissatisfaction r.w.s. 115JB 9. Brand building 10 10 8 -- -- -- expenditure (AMP) 10. Brand Equity 11 11 9 -- -- -- subscription to Tata Sons 11. Non TDS on commission 12 12 10 -- -- - to non-resident 12. Foreign Tax Credit for 13 and 15 and 12 -- -- -- income u/s.10A/AA 17 17 13. General on section

Sonam Jain, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 58(1), Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 7323/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 7323/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2020-21 Sonam Jain, Vs Income Tax Officer, Sinha & Sinha Law Chambers Llp, Ward-58(1), 108-109, Parmesh Business New Delhi-110002 Centre-1, Plot No. 20, Community Centre, Karkardooma, Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aokpj1373B Assessee By: Sh. Prince Mohan Sinha, Adv. & Sh. Aniket Krishnatray, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Amit Shukla, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.12.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2020-21 Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1081007249(1) Dated 22.09.2025, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Prince Mohan Sinha, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Amit Shukla, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 40

Shukla vehemently argues that the impugned disallowance has been rightly invoked in the assessee’s hands since she had failed to deduct TDS on commission paid to various e-marking companies namely, Amazon, Flipkart and other similar portals. He could hardly dispute that the clinching fact emerging from the assessment

ITO., Ward 14(1), Hyderabad vs. Joshita Infra Developers LLP, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 672/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 44A

deleted the addition towards commission expenditure only on the ground that the assessee has furnished details relating to deduction of TDS on commission, without appreciating the fact that payment through proper banking channels and deduction of TDS by itself does not prove the genuineness of the commission expenditure incurred

Joshita Infra Developers LLP, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-14(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1055/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 44A

deleted the addition towards commission expenditure only on the ground that the assessee has furnished details relating to deduction of TDS on commission, without appreciating the fact that payment through proper banking channels and deduction of TDS by itself does not prove the genuineness of the commission expenditure incurred

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Kewalram Textiles Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1076/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Hem Chhajed, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P. Meena, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 37Section 37(1)

that the assessee company paid commission to non- resident amounting to Rs. 3,42,79,595/- during the year and had not deducted TDS on commission payment to non-resident. The said details were asked by issuing notice u/s. 142(1) and further a show cause notice dated

Shreyans Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 8(2), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2455/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 201Section 250Section 263Section 40

C.I.T., Kolkata-3 vide order under section 263 of the Act dated 04/12/2015 on the issue of non-deduction of TDS on commission payments made to a concern named M/s. Suryamukhi Project Pvt. Ltd. (“SPPL”) and the assessee was also showing income from commission. Thereafter the assessment order was passed

Shreyans Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 8(2), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2454/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 201Section 250Section 263Section 40

C.I.T., Kolkata-3 vide order under section 263 of the Act dated 04/12/2015 on the issue of non-deduction of TDS on commission payments made to a concern named M/s. Suryamukhi Project Pvt. Ltd. (“SPPL”) and the assessee was also showing income from commission. Thereafter the assessment order was passed

Madho Bihari Agrawal, Burhanpur vs. ACIT Circle - 4(1), Indore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 845/IND/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 154Section 194HSection 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI