2025 (9) TMI 615 - AT - Income Tax

Foreign agent commission not taxable; s.37(1) allows director medical reimbursement; s.14A/Rule 8D limited; warranty reserve upheld

M/s. Roomag Motors & Controls P. Ltd. [Rotomag Enertec Ltd.) Versus Dy. CIT, Anand Circle Anand.

ITAT A'bad held that commission paid to a foreign agent was not taxable in India as no PE or business connection existed here and services were rendered ... TDS u/s 195 - Disallowance of commission paid to foreign agents for non-deduction of TDS - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the assessee has consistently claimed that the non-resident agent had no permanent establishment or business connection in India and that the services were rendered outside India. These submissions are supported by the nature of transaction, namely, commission for introducing foreign buyers. The revenue has not brought any material on record to show that the services were rendered in India or that the non-resident had a business connection in India. Mere procurement of export orders through agents based abroad, by itself, does not establish accrual of income in India. Disallowance sustained by the CIT(A) does not stand in light of the above settled judicial position. The DTAA between India and Germany further supports the assessee’s case, as business profits of a non-resident are taxable in India only if the non-resident has a permanent establishment in India. We hold that the commission payment made to Octacom Antriebstechnik, Germany, is not chargeable to tax in India. Disallowance of Medical Expenses of Director u/s 37(1) - AO held that such expenditure was personal in nature and not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business - HELD THAT:- The company, being a juristic person, cannot have personal needs of its own, and once the expenditure is incurred pursuant to a valid resolution of the Board and in discharge of contractual obligation, the same partakes the character of business expenditure. As decided in Paradeep Oxygen (P) Ltd.[2001 (2) TMI 278 - ITAT CUTTACK] has also held that reimbursement of medical expenses of a managing director, when duly authorized by Board resolution, is allowable u/s 37(1) as expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. Thus, we are of the considered view that the disallowance sustained by the authorities below is not justified. Disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D - assessee’s interest expenditure was relatable to investments yielding exempt income - assessee contended that the exempt dividend income earned during the year was only Rs. 1,68,932/- and the assessee had substantial interest-free funds (capital and reserves of Rs. 15.48 crore) which were much higher than the investments - HELD THAT:-Disallowance u/s 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned during the year. We hold that no disallowance of interest expenditure is warranted under section 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(ii) in the present case. The suo motu disallowance offered by the assessee in respect of administrative expenditure is reasonable. Addition as undisclosed receipts (Form 26AS mismatch) - HELD THAT:- In principle, the submission of the assessee is well founded. The doctrine of real income mandates that only real income which has accrued or is received can be brought to tax and not hypothetical accrual. At the same time, the possibility of double taxation on the same amount cannot be countenanced in law. In the interest of justice, therefore, while we accept the assessee’s contention that the amount should not be taxed twice, we restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to verify from the assessee’s accounts and records whether the said sum has in fact been offered and assessed to tax in AY 2017-18 [2024 (9) TMI 281 - ITAT AHMEDABAD]. If on verification it is found to be so, the addition made in AY 2014-15 shall be deleted. Disallowance of claim of warranty expenses treating the same as an unascertained and contingent liability - AO held that no scientific basis was furnished for computing the provision, and in absence of cogent evidence, the same could not be allowed - HELD THAT:- Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rotork Controls [2009 (5) TMI 16 - SUPREME COURT], Bharat Earth Movers [2000 (8) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT] and the binding decision of Co-ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2017-18 a provision for warranty, even in the first year of contract, is allowable where it is made on a rational basis and complies with AS-29. The Co-ordinate Bench noted that the assessee had consistently made such provisions in earlier and later years, and that the provision was reversed and offered as income on expiry of warranty period, thereby evidencing the correctness of the estimate. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED Whether commission paid to a non-resident agent is chargeable to tax in India such that obligation to deduct tax at source under section 195 arises and consequent disallowance under section 40(a)(i) is warranted. Whether the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) provisions prevail to negate Indian taxability of commission paid to a foreign agent and thereby negate TDS obligation. Whether employees' contribution to Provident Fund (PF) is allowable where the ground is not pressed by the assessee. Whether reimbursement of medical expenses of a director who is also an employee, authorized by Board resolution and contractually sanctioned, is allowable as business expenditure under section 37(1). Whether disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D is permissible where (a) exempt income (dividend) earned during year is small vis-à-vis disallowance claimed, (b) assessee had ample own funds, and (c) mandatory satisfaction under section 14A(2) was not recorded by AO in respect of suo motu disallowance. Whether an addition based on mismatch with Form 26AS (interest income shown in Form 26AS but not in assessee's books) can be sustained where receipt was disputed and subsequently recognized and taxed in a later assessment year. Whether a provision for warranty expenses created on the basis of contractual obligation and computed by a rational method (1.5% of project cost), with subsequent actual expenditure in later years, is allowable as deduction and not a contingent/uncertain liability. Whether Principles of Natural Justice were violated by non-entertainment of adjournment request and adjudication on record materials (raised generally as ground but considered only insofar as it affected specific issues). Whether interest under sections 234A/B/C and 244A and penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) (via section 274) were correctly sustained (raised but not specifically adjudicated in result beyond grounds listed). 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue: Taxability of foreign commission, TDS obligation under section 195 and disallowance under section 40(a)(i) Legal framework: Obligation to deduct tax at source under section 195 arises only where payment to non-resident is chargeable to tax in India; where income does not accrue or arise in India (section 9(1)(i)), no TDS obligation exists; section 40(a)(i) operates where tax deductible at source has not been deducted. Precedent treatment: The Court relied on settled jurisprudence that the threshold for TDS under section 195 is chargeability to tax; coordinate decisions have held commission paid to non-resident agents for services rendered wholly outside India in connection with export sales not taxable in India. Interpretation and reasoning: The assessee established facts that commission related to introducing foreign buyers, services were rendered outside India, and the non-resident had no business connection or permanent establishment in India. Revenue produced no material to contradict territorial situs or business connection. The DTAA (India-Germany) supports non-taxability of business profits absent permanent establishment. Applying law and precedents, the Court found no chargeability; hence no obligation under section 195 and no disallowance under section 40(a)(i). Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where commission to non-resident is for services rendered outside India and no PE/business connection exists, such commission is not chargeable to tax in India and TDS under section 195 is not attracted; consequent disallowance under section 40(a)(i) unsustainable. The DTAA interpretation as applied is part of the operative ratio. Conclusion: Disallowance of Rs. 1,42,197 under section 40(a)(i) deleted. Issue: Employees' contribution to PF (ground not pressed) Legal framework: Allowability under section 36(1)(va) contingent on compliance and legal position. Precedent treatment: Not addressed because assessee did not press the ground. Interpretation and reasoning: Party elected not to press; tribunal declines to decide on merits. Ratio vs. Obiter: Obiter - dismissal as not pressed; no adjudication on merits. Conclusion: Ground dismissed as not pressed. Issue: Reimbursement of medical expenses of director as business expenditure under section 37(1) Legal framework: Expenditure is allowable under section 37(1) only if incurred wholly and exclusively for business; contractual/statutory authorization or Board resolution can convert an otherwise personal expense into business expenditure. Precedent treatment: Coordinate bench decisions support allowance where bona fide Board resolution and contractual authorization exist. Interpretation and reasoning: Assessee produced Board resolution authorizing reimbursement; directors are employees and key managerial personnel; as a juristic person cannot have personal needs, expenditures pursuant to valid board authorization and contractual obligation partake business character. On these facts and binding precedents, disallowance was unjustified. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - medical reimbursements to director/employee pursuant to valid Board resolution and contractual authorization can be allowable under section 37(1) as wholly and exclusively for business purposes. Conclusion: Disallowance of Rs. 1,00,901/- deleted. Issue: Disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D (interest and administrative allocation) Legal framework: Section 14A disallows expenditure in relation to exempt income; Rule 8D prescribes methodology; section 14A(2) requires recording of satisfaction before invoking Rule 8D in certain contexts; settled principle that disallowance under section 14A cannot exceed exempt income earned during the year. Precedent treatment: Supreme Court and High Court authorities require satisfaction recording and cap disallowance by exempt income; prior decisions hold that where own funds are adequate, interest disallowance may not be attributable to exempt investments. Interpretation and reasoning: Assessee's capital and reserves exceeded investments; no nexus established by AO between borrowings and investments yielding exempt income; AO failed to record dissatisfaction regarding suo motu administrative disallowance; disallowance (Rs. 11,97,333) exceeded exempt dividend income (Rs. 1,68,932), rendering it unsustainable. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - invocation of Rule 8D must follow mandatory preconditions (recording of satisfaction where required), disallowance under section 14A cannot exceed exempt income, and when ample own funds exist and no nexus to borrowings is shown, interest disallowance under Rule 8D is unsustainable. Conclusion: Disallowance of Rs. 11,97,333/- under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D deleted; suo motu administrative disallowance of Rs. 1,60,838 held reasonable. Issue: Addition of interest income based on Form 26AS mismatch where receipt disputed and later taxed Legal framework: Income accrues when a right to receive crystallizes; Form 26AS mismatch may indicate receipt but not necessarily accrual if receipt is disputed; double taxation must be avoided. Precedent treatment: Doctrine of real income and principle against double taxation guide adjudication; verification by AO appropriate where later years reflect recognition. Interpretation and reasoning: Assessee showed ledger evidence that interest was disputed in year under appeal and was only recognized and offered to tax in later assessment year once dispute resolved; taxing same amount twice impermissible. However, factual verification required whether the amount was indeed assessed in later year. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - addition based solely on Form 26AS mismatch cannot be sustained where genuine dispute existed and amount was subsequently offered and assessed in a later year; AO to verify and delete if later assessment confirms taxation. Conclusion: Matter restored to AO for verification; addition of Rs. 19,44,030/- to be deleted if verified as taxed in AY 2017-18. Issue: Allowability of warranty provision (Rs. 22,00,000) - present obligation, probability of outflow, reliable estimate Legal framework: Provisions for warranty deductible where (i) present obligation arises from past event, (ii) outflow probable, and (iii) reliable estimate possible based on scientific method/past data (AS-29 principles); contingent/uncertain liabilities not deductible. Precedent treatment: Supreme Court authority and coordinate decisions permit allowance where provision is rationally computed and supported by past experience and subsequent realisations. Interpretation and reasoning: Assessee demonstrated contractual warranty obligation (five years for pumping systems), computed provision at 1.5% of project cost based on commercial prudence and past experience, expended substantial amounts in subsequent years (Rs. 18,49,415) validating estimate, and had prior tribunal acceptance on identical issue for later AY. Absent cogent AO rebuttal, provision meets tests under authoritative precedents. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - a warranty provision computed on rational basis and corroborated by subsequent actual expenditure and compliance with AS-29 is allowable; treating such provision as mere contingent liability is incorrect where present obligation and reliable estimate exist. Conclusion: Disallowance of Rs. 22,00,000/- deleted. Issue: Natural justice, interest and penalty issues Legal framework: Principles of Natural Justice require opportunity to be heard; interest and penalty provisions impose distinct standards of proof and compliance. Interpretation and reasoning: Adjournment request not entertained was raised but specific adverse consequences on particular findings were not found to vitiate adjudication of issues which were decided on record and submissions; interest and penalty grounds were raised but the tribunal's order addressed principal additions and deletions-no separate resolution recorded in operative part in respect of interest and penalty beyond grounds listed. Ratio vs. Obiter: Obiter - general assertion of breach of natural justice noted but specific findings founded on record and precedent; no separate operative reversal of interest or penalty recorded in the decision excerpts available. Conclusion: Tribunal partly allowed the appeal by deleting disallowances/additions on issues detailed above and remanding the Form 26AS addition for verification; other grounds either not pressed or not sustained on the material before the Tribunal.