TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the disallowance out of polishing charges should be restricted to 5% of the total expenditure; (ii) whether depreciation on electrical fittings was allowable at 15% instead of 10%; (iii) whether interest disallowance on interest-free advances was sustainable where the assessee claimed availability of sufficient interest-free funds; and (iv) whether foreign commission paid to non-resident agents was liable to tax deduction at source under section 195 and disallowance under section 40(a)(ia).
Issue (i): Whether the disallowance out of polishing charges should be restricted to 5% of the total expenditure.
Analysis: The payments were supported by PAN particulars, quantitative details, partial confirmations, and tax deduction at source. The non-response to notices under section 133(6) by some parties, by itself, was not enough to disallow the entire claim or sustain a higher estimated disallowance. The facts also showed that the assessee had substantially established genuineness of the expenditure, though some verification gaps remained.
Conclusion: The disallowance was reduced to 5% and the issue was decided partly in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether depreciation on electrical fittings was allowable at 15% instead of 10%.
Analysis: Electrical fittings were treated as falling within the category of furniture and fittings for the purpose of the depreciation table, and the assessee did not establish that the assets belonged to plant and machinery so as to justify the higher rate.
Conclusion: Depreciation at 10% was upheld and the issue was decided against the assessee.
Issue (iii): Whether interest disallowance on interest-free advances was sustainable where the assessee claimed availability of sufficient interest-free funds.
Analysis: The assessee asserted that its interest-free funds exceeded the amount of advances. In such a situation, the presumption arising from mixed funds supported the assessee's claim, but the factual position regarding partner's current account and interest-bearing capital required verification before a final determination could be made.
Conclusion: The matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for verification and the issue was allowed for statistical purposes.
Issue (iv): Whether foreign commission paid to non-resident agents was liable to tax deduction at source under section 195 and disallowance under section 40(a)(ia).
Analysis: The commission agents operated outside India, rendered services abroad, had no permanent establishment in India, and no part of the commission income was shown to accrue or arise in India under section 5(2) or section 9(1)(i). In the absence of chargeability to tax in India, the withholding obligation under section 195 did not arise, and the consequential disallowance could not be sustained. The protections under the applicable DTAAs also supported this conclusion.
Conclusion: The deletion of the foreign commission addition was upheld and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on the polishing charges, the interest issue was remitted for verification, and the foreign commission addition was deleted, while the depreciation disallowance was sustained; the Revenue's appeal failed in full.
Ratio Decidendi: Where non-resident agents render services outside India and have no permanent establishment or taxable income chargeable in India, commission paid to them is not subject to withholding under section 195 and cannot be disallowed merely for non-deduction of tax at source; similarly, where the assessee shows substantial evidence of expenditure and tax deduction, a blanket estimate is unwarranted, though partial disallowance may be sustained on the facts.
TaxTMI 
