9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 372X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Ltd. [ 2014 (9) TMI 96 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] wherein it was held that 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 of fees for technical services and, therefore, section 9 was not applicable and, consequently, section 195 did not come into play. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO towards export commission paid by the assessee to the non-resident was rightly deleted. - Decided against revenue. - ITA NO. 6622/DEL/2019 - - - Dated:- 9-11-2020 - SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessee by Sh. Piyush Kaushik, Advocate Department by Sh. R.K. Gupta, Sr. D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee draw our attention towards ground no. 3 and stated that the issue involved in the present appeal is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the Division Bench of ITAT in assessee s own case for A.Y. 2011-12 in ITA no. 4395/Del/2014 dated 27.6.2018. Hence, respectfully following the same ratio, the appeal of the assessee may be allowed. 5. On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the records, especially the order dated 27.6.2018 of the Division Bench, ITAT, passed in assessee s own case for A.Y. 2011-12 in ITA No. 4395/Del/2014 as mentioned in the ground no. 3 raised by the assessee. No contrary decision has been produced before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer has made disallowance of ₹ 32,48,174/- u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act. The assessee in support of his claim has given the following case laws:- 1) DCIT vs. Divi's Laboratories Ltd reported in 2011 TII 182 (2011) 12 Taxmann. Com 103, 2) Eon Technologies (P) Ltd vs. DCIT 11 Taxmann.com 53 (Del). 4) Hon'ble ITAT Chennai Bench in the case of DCIT vs. M/s Mainetti (India) p. Ltd. 138/20, Florida Towers, 3rd Floor, Chennai. The assessee in his submission has clearly stated that payment made to foreign agent is clearly commission paid and according to section 195(1) of the act, the payment directly made to the overseas agent at their places was not accrue or arises to the overseas agent in India is not chargea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in the assessment year 2011-12 and rightly allowed the appeal of the assessee by deleting the addition in dispute. We further find that Ld. CIT(A) in the assessment year 2009-10 has respectfully followed the following decisions:- 1) DCIT vs. Divi's Laboratories Ltd reported in 2011 TII 182 (2011) 12 Taxmann. Com 103, 2) Eon Technologies (P) Ltd vs. DCIT 11 Taxmann.com 53 (Del). 3) Hon'ble ITAT Chennai Bench in the case of DCIT vs. M/s Mainetti (India) p. Ltd. 138/20, Florida Towers, 3rd Floor, Chennai. 7.2 We also find that on the anvil of the following decisions, the assessee is not liable to deduct tax at source:- i) Decision of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT in the case of DCIT (International Taxatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Court in the case of CIT vs. EON Technology P. Ltd. 343 ITR 366 (Del.) wherein it has been held that non-resident commission agents based outside India rendering services of procuring orders cannot be said to have a business connection in India and the commission payments to them cannot be said to have been either accrued or arisen in India. v) Decision of Delhi ITAT in the case of Divya Creation vs. CIT (2017) 86 taxmann.com 276 wherein it has been observed that (Heads Note) where assessee-firm made payments of commission to those agents, since those agents had their offices situated abroad and, moreover, services were also rendered by them outside India, assessee was not required to deduct tax at source while making payments in qu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
