Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the payment made to the foreign-trading intermediary was commission for export procurement or fees for technical services, and consequently whether tax was deductible at source under Section 194J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 with liability under Section 201(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis: The agreement showed that the intermediary transferred foreign buyers' letters of credit in favour of the assessee for execution of the export contract and charged a service commission linked to the export transaction. The arrangement was held to be one of principal and agent, and the services rendered were found to be in the nature of procurement and facilitation of export, not managerial, technical, consultancy, legal, medical, engineering, architectural, accountancy, interior decoration or advertising services. On that construction, the payment did not fall within the definition of fees for technical services and Section 194J was inapplicable.
Conclusion: The payment was not liable to tax deduction at source under Section 194J, and the assessee was not in default under Section 201(1).
Ratio Decidendi: A payment made as commission for export procurement under a principal-agent arrangement does not become fees for technical services merely because it is connected with commercial assistance in the execution of the contract.