Foreign agent commission and software expenditure treatment turn on PE status, service character, and proof of revenue nature.

Commission paid to foreign selling agents for procuring export orders was held not to be fees for technical or managerial services where the agents merely performed ordinary sales-intermediary functions, had no permanent establishment in India, and the income was taxable, if at all, only in the country of residence under the relevant DTAA; accordingly, no tax was required to be deducted under section 195 and disallowance under section 40(a)(i) was not justified. By contrast, the claim that software purchase expenditure in AY 2010-11 was revenue in nature failed because the assessee did not produce sufficient details of the software or its functional character, so the treatment of the expenditure as capital with depreciation was not shown to be erroneous.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether commission paid to foreign agents for procuring export orders was liable to disallowance under section 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of tax at source; (ii) Whether software purchase expenditure in AY 2010-11 was allowable as revenue expenditure.

Issue (i): Whether commission paid to foreign agents for procuring export orders was liable to disallowance under section 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of tax at source.

Analysis: The foreign agents acted as selling agents and procured orders from overseas customers. The references to market trends, pricing, design and customer requirements were treated as ordinary functions of a sales intermediary and not as managerial or technical services. The commission was paid on sales effected through the agents, the agents had no permanent establishment in India, and the income was treated as business income taxable, if at all, only in the country of residence under the relevant DTAA. On that basis, there was no obligation to deduct tax at source under section 195, and disallowance under section 40(a)(i) was not justified.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether software purchase expenditure in AY 2010-11 was allowable as revenue expenditure.

Analysis: The assessee did not furnish sufficient details of the software purchased, the contract terms, or the functional nature of the software. In the absence of factual material, the claim could not be tested against the cited precedent on application software. The treatment of the expenditure as capital expenditure with depreciation allowed was therefore not shown to be erroneous.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The disallowance of commission under section 40(a)(i) was deleted for all the years, while the software expenditure disallowance for AY 2010-11 was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Commission paid to foreign selling agents for procuring export orders, where the agents have no permanent establishment in India and the services rendered are ordinary sales-procurement functions, is not fees for technical or managerial services and is not liable to disallowance under section 40(a)(i) for want of tax deduction at source.

---