Tribunal upholds CIT(A) decision on commission, PF, ESI, dismisses Revenue appeal.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of commission under section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act for various parties, emphasizing that commission paid for export services outside India was not taxable in India. Additionally, the Tribunal supported the CIT(A)'s allowance of the employee's contribution to PF & ESI, citing timely payments and previous court judgments. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the assessee's cross-objection was partly allowed.

---

---

Issues involved:
1. Disallowance of commission under section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act.
2. Disallowance of employee's contribution to PF & ESI.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Disallowance of commission under section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act:
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting the disallowance of commission. The CIT(A) directed the deletion of disallowance for various parties based on submitted agreements and detailed statements. The AR supported the CIT(A)'s order, citing similar cases and decisions in favor of the assessee. The Coordinate Bench's decision for A.Y. 2011-12 supported the assessee, emphasizing that the commission paid for export services outside India was not taxable in India. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the Revenue's ground and allowing the assessee's cross objection.

Issue 2: Disallowance of employee's contribution to PF & ESI:
Regarding the disallowance of employee's contribution to PF & ESI, the CIT(A) allowed the claim based on timely payment before the due date of filing the return of income u/s 139(1). Citing judgments of the Rajasthan High Court and previous cases, the CIT(A) directed the deletion of disallowance. The Coordinate Bench's decision for A.Y. 2011-12 supported the assessee's position, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's ground. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's ground and allowing the assessee's cross-objection. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, and the assessee's cross-objection was partly allowed.

---