TDS not required on sales commission to foreign entity as services don't qualify as FTS under DTAA section 195

ITAT Bangalore ruled in favor of the assessee on two key issues. Regarding TDS under section 195, the tribunal held that no tax deduction was required on sales commission paid to Manthan Systems Inc., as the services did not fall under FTS or Article 12 of DTAA, following consistent decisions in assessee's earlier years (AYs 2012-13 to 2015-16). Consequently, no disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was warranted. For ESOP expenses, the tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s decision allowing the deduction, citing established precedent from coordinate bench decisions in assessee's previous assessment years.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance under Section 14(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Disallowance of ESOP expenses.
3. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of tax at source on sales commission.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance under Section 14(a)(i):
- The judgment does not provide specific details on the disallowance under Section 14(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as the primary focus was on the disallowance of sales commission and ESOP expenses. However, it is mentioned as a common issue contended by the Revenue for the assessment years involved.

2. Disallowance of ESOP Expenses:
- The assessee claimed expenses related to the grant of options under an Employee Stock Option Plan (ESOP). The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed these expenses, stating that they were contingent in nature and not specifically allowable under the Income Tax Act.
- The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, relying on the decision of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for previous years, which was upheld by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT, LTU vs. Biocon Ltd. The Tribunal in Biocon Ltd. concluded that ESOP expenses are not contingent liabilities but ascertained liabilities, thus allowable under Section 37 of the Act.
- The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, affirming that ESOP expenses are deductible, referencing the consistent position taken by the coordinate bench and the jurisdictional High Court.

3. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) for Non-Deduction of Tax at Source on Sales Commission:
- The AO disallowed the sales commission paid to the assessee's US subsidiary, Manthan Systems Inc., under Section 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of tax at source, arguing that the payments were in the nature of Fees for Technical Services (FTS).
- The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, relying on the Tribunal's decision in the assessee's own case for earlier years and the case of Manthan Systems Inc., where it was held that the sales commission did not fall within the ambit of FTS as per Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act or under Article 12 of the India-USA DTAA.
- The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, emphasizing that the services rendered were not technical or consultancy services and did not meet the "make available" test under the DTAA. The Tribunal cited multiple judicial precedents, including the Bangalore ITAT and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, supporting the view that sales commission paid to foreign entities for marketing services does not constitute FTS, and thus, no TDS was required.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals for the assessment years 2016-17 to 2018-19, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowances made by the AO. The Tribunal's decision was heavily influenced by precedents set in the assessee's own case and other relevant judicial pronouncements, affirming that the sales commission was not taxable as FTS and ESOP expenses were allowable under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act.

---