2018 (7) TMI 1982 - AT - Income Tax

TDS u/s 195 - payments of commission to non-resident agents who procured orders from parties situated outside India - case selected for scrutiny under CASS - main objection of the Assessing Officer while disallowing the impugned payment was that the foreign commission agents were allegedly rendering services to the assessee which were beyond the scope and definition of marketing agents - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT - The commission received by the non-resident company for procuring product and rendering incidental services for purchases to the resident company was not taxable in India as fees for technical services . See ADIDAS SOURCING LTD. 2013 (1) TMI 106 - ITAT DELHI . Whenever payments are made on account of commission for procuring sales orders, tax was not required to be deducted at source Assessing Officer was unable to bring any cogent material on record to establish that the non-resident commission agents had rendered any technical, consultancy or managerial services, are unable to take a view contrary to that of the Ld. CIT (A) who has given a categorical finding to this effect. We also note that the assessee had been making similar payments in earlier as well as subsequent assessment years which were accepted by the department in assessment orders framed u/s 143(3) of the Act and no adverse inference had been drawn by the department in this regard. Accordingly, we find no reason to interfere with the findings of the Ld. CIT (A) in this regard and we dismiss the grounds raised by the department.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of commission payments to non-resident agents for non-deduction of tax at source under Section 195 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Classification of services provided by non-resident agents as consultancy services under Section 9(vii)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
3. Consistency in the treatment of similar commission payments in previous and subsequent assessment years.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Commission Payments:
The department's appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] involves the disallowance of ?1,46,00,693/- paid as commission to non-resident agents without deduction of tax at source under Section 195 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer (AO) had disallowed these payments, classifying them as fees for consultancy services under Section 9(vii)(c) of the Act, thereby invoking Section 40(i) to disallow the deduction. The CIT(A) overturned this disallowance, accepting the assessee's contention that the services provided by the agents were purely for procuring orders and did not constitute consultancy services.

2. Classification of Services:
The AO argued that the services provided by the non-resident agents went beyond mere marketing and included consultancy services, citing correspondences that indicated the agents provided inputs on samples, design, pricing, and other specifications. The AO relied on the ruling in SKF Boilers and Driers Pvt. Ltd. and the Supreme Court's decision in GVK Industries Ltd. vs. ITO to support this classification. However, the CIT(A) and the ITAT found that the agents were only involved in procuring orders and did not provide any specialized consultancy services. The ITAT referred to the case of Adidas Sourcing Ltd. vs. Asstt. DIT, where it was held that commission for procuring orders does not qualify as fees for technical services under Section 9(1)(vii).

3. Consistency in Treatment:
The assessee argued that similar commission payments had been made in earlier and subsequent years without any disallowance by the department. The CIT(A) and ITAT noted that the department had accepted these payments in assessment orders framed under Section 143(3) for previous and subsequent years, emphasizing the principle of consistency. The ITAT also referred to the Allahabad High Court's judgment in CIT vs. Model Exims, which held that commission payments to foreign agents do not attract tax deduction at source under Section 195, as these agents do not have a business connection or permanent establishment in India.

Conclusion:
The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the department's appeal. The tribunal found no evidence to support the AO's classification of the services as consultancy services and emphasized the consistent treatment of similar payments in other assessment years. The ITAT concluded that the payments to non-resident agents were purely for procuring orders and did not require tax deduction at source under Section 195, thereby affirming the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the deduction.