Commissions to non-resident export agents not FTS or Indian-sourced income; Sections 9 and 195 inapplicable, TDS demand disallowed

HC held against the revenue: commissions paid to non-resident selling agents for procuring export orders and related export completion services (including facilitating letters of credit) do not constitute fees for technical services and are not income accruing or arising in India. Consequently section 9 and the withholding provisions of section 195 do not apply, as the agents rendered services outside India and did not carry on business operations in India; taxability and TDS demand were disallowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of commission payment to non-resident agent under Section 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of TDS under Section 195.
2. Nature of services rendered by the non-resident agent and applicability of Section 9(1)(vii) and Explanation to Section 9(2) of the Income Tax Act.
3. Determination of whether the commission payment is deemed to have accrued or arisen in India as per Explanation inserted by Finance Act, 2010.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Commission Payment to Non-Resident Agent under Section 40(a)(i) for Non-Deduction of TDS under Section 195:
The Assessing Officer disallowed the commission paid by the assessee to the non-resident agent under Section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, contending that the payment was subject to tax deduction at source under Section 195. The officer argued that the payment was deemed to have arisen in India under Section 9(1) of the Act. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal held that the commission payments to the non-resident agent were not chargeable to tax in India, thus Section 195 was not applicable. Both authorities relied on the Supreme Court's decision in GE India Technology Cen. (P) Ltd. v. CIT, concluding that the payments were not for technical services and therefore not taxable in India.

2. Nature of Services Rendered by the Non-Resident Agent and Applicability of Section 9(1)(vii) and Explanation to Section 9(2) of the Income Tax Act:
The Revenue argued that the services rendered by the non-resident agent, including procuring orders and arranging letters of credit, fell under "fees for technical services" as per Explanation (2) to Section 9(1)(vii). However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal found that the services were purely for procuring contracts and did not involve any technical or managerial services. The Tribunal emphasized that the non-resident agent did not provide any technical services for the running of the assessee's business in India. The High Court concurred, stating that the commission paid was for services related to the completion of export obligations and did not qualify as fees for technical services.

3. Determination of Whether the Commission Payment is Deemed to Have Accrued or Arisen in India as per Explanation Inserted by Finance Act, 2010:
The Revenue contended that under the Explanation to Section 9(2), inserted by the Finance Act, 2010, the income of a non-resident is deemed to accrue or arise in India, irrespective of whether the non-resident has a place of business or has rendered services in India. The High Court, however, referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Toshoku Limited, which held that commission earned by non-resident agents for services rendered outside India cannot be deemed to have accrued in India. The High Court found the facts of the present case similar to Toshoku Limited and concluded that the commission paid to the non-resident agent did not fall within the scope of Section 9(1)(vii) and thus was not taxable in India.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the decisions of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal. It was concluded that the commission payments to the non-resident agent were not chargeable to tax in India, and therefore, the provisions of Section 195 did not apply. The court found no infirmity in the Tribunal's order and answered the substantial questions of law against the Revenue. The appeal was dismissed with no costs.

---