Genuine expenditure and non-chargeable non-resident payments defeated disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) in this ITAT ruling.

Commission expenditure supported by bills, bank payments, TDS details and evidence of business procurement was held to be genuine, and the disallowance was deleted because the recipient was not shown in the adverse material and effective cross-examination was denied. Legal fees paid to a non-resident law firm for services rendered outside India were also held not liable to disallowance under section 40(a)(ia), as the sum was not chargeable to tax in India and no withholding obligation arose under section 195. On both issues, the additions were deleted and the Revenue's appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether commission expenditure paid to an advertising concern was bogus and liable to disallowance; (ii) Whether legal fees paid to a non-resident law firm were liable to disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) for want of tax deduction at source.

Issue (i): Whether commission expenditure paid to an advertising concern was bogus and liable to disallowance.

Analysis: The assessee produced bills, payment details, TDS particulars, return filing details of the recipient, and supporting material showing procurement of business. The recipient's name did not figure in the adverse material relied upon by the Assessing Officer, and the assessee was denied effective cross-examination of the person whose general statement was relied upon. The Commissioner (Appeals) found the payment to be through banking channels, at a reasonable rate, and supported by evidence of services rendered.

Conclusion: The disallowance of commission expenditure was not sustainable and was rightly deleted.

Issue (ii): Whether legal fees paid to a non-resident law firm were liable to disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) for want of tax deduction at source.

Analysis: The legal services were rendered outside India by a non-resident entity having no permanent establishment in India. The Commissioner (Appeals) applied the India-Australia tax treaty and the principle that, where the sum is not chargeable to tax in India, no withholding obligation arises under section 195. In that situation, section 40(a)(ia) could not be invoked.

Conclusion: The disallowance of legal fees under section 40(a)(ia) was not sustainable and was rightly deleted.

Final Conclusion: Both additions were deleted, and the Revenue's appeal failed in full.

Ratio Decidendi: Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) cannot be sustained where the assessee establishes genuineness and business purpose of expenditure, or where payment to a non-resident is not chargeable to tax in India so that no withholding obligation under section 195 arises.

---