2019 (1) TMI 1453 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Upholds Foreign Commission Tax Exemption; Dismisses Disallowance Appeal

Dy. CIT, Cir – 2 (1) (2), Ahmedabad Versus M/s. Mc Fil ls Enterprise Pvt. Ltd.

Dy. CIT, Cir – 2 (1) (2), Ahmedabad Versus M/s. Mc Fil ls Enterprise Pvt. Ltd. - TMI Issues:1. Disallowance of commission paid to foreign agents under section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act.2. Disallowance made under section 14A of the Income Tax Act.Analysis:Issue 1: Disallowance of Commission Paid to Foreign Agents under Section 40(a)(i)The appeal was filed by the revenue challenging the deletion of disallowance of commission paid to foreign agents under section 40(a)(i) amounting to Rs. 43,57,703. The assessee contended that the commission paid to non-resident foreign agents was not chargeable under the Income Tax Act as income of the payee. The assessee relied on the judgment of G.E. India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd.-vs-CIT, 327 ITR 456, stating that Section 195 of the Act applies only when the amount paid to a non-resident is chargeable under the Income Tax Act as income of the payee. The assessee argued that the commission paid to foreign agents for services rendered outside India for procurement of sales orders was not taxable in India. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the assessee's position and deleted the disallowance. The tribunal confirmed the deletion, stating that the commission income did not accrue or arise in India as the foreign agents did not have a permanent establishment in India. The tribunal also noted that the commission payments did not fall under fees for technical services as defined in the Income Tax Act.Issue 2: Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax ActThe revenue challenged the deletion of disallowance made under section 14A of the Income Tax Act amounting to Rs. 26,64,827. The assessee argued that no income claimed as exempt income formed part of the total income, making Section 14A inapplicable. The tribunal observed that the investments in a partnership firm were made using own funds without utilizing interest-bearing borrowed funds. The tribunal noted that no direct or indirect expenditure was incurred by the firm in relation to the investment in the partnership firm. Relying on the judgment in the case of CIT vs. Corrtech Energy Ltd., the tribunal concluded that since no exempt income was claimed, Section 14A did not apply. The tribunal upheld the deletion of the disallowance, finding no infirmity in the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).In conclusion, the tribunal dismissed the appeal, confirming the decisions of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding both issues.