Non-resident commission, interest-free funds, and delayed PF/ESI contributions: ITAT applies withholding, presumption, and statutory due-date rules.

Commission paid to non-resident export agents for services rendered entirely outside India was held not chargeable to tax in India in the absence of a permanent establishment or business connection, so section 195 withholding did not apply and disallowance under section 40(a)(i) failed. Interest disallowance was also deleted because the assessee's own interest-free funds exceeded the investments in capital work-in-progress, supporting the presumption that such investments came from non-borrowed funds. By contrast, employees' contributions to PF and ESI deposited after the statutory due dates remained disallowable under section 36(1)(va), following Checkmate Services (P) Ltd., and section 43B did not cure the delay.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether commission paid to non-resident agents for procuring export orders was chargeable to tax in India so as to attract section 195 and disallowance under section 40(a)(i); (ii) whether interest expenditure was liable to disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) where the assessee had substantial interest-free funds; and (iii) whether employees' contribution to PF and ESI deposited beyond the due dates under the respective welfare statutes was allowable under section 36(1)(va).

Issue (i): Whether commission paid to non-resident agents for procuring export orders was chargeable to tax in India so as to attract section 195 and disallowance under section 40(a)(i).

Analysis: The commission issue was covered by binding precedent in the assessee's own case. The services of the foreign agents were rendered outside India for procuring export orders, and no permanent establishment or business connection in India was shown. On those facts, the commission income did not accrue or arise in India within the meaning of section 5(2) read with section 9(1)(i). Once the income was not chargeable to tax in India, section 195 did not apply and the consequential disallowance under section 40(a)(i) could not survive.

Conclusion: The disallowance of commission expenditure was deleted and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether interest expenditure was liable to disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) where the assessee had substantial interest-free funds.

Analysis: The assessee's own funds were found to be far in excess of the investments in capital work-in-progress. In such a situation, the settled presumption is that the investments were made out of interest-free funds, and no disallowance of interest is warranted merely because borrowings also existed in the capital structure.

Conclusion: The disallowance of interest expenditure was deleted and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether employees' contribution to PF and ESI deposited beyond the due dates under the respective welfare statutes was allowable under section 36(1)(va).

Analysis: The issue was governed against the assessee by the binding decision of the Supreme Court in Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. Employees' contribution stands on a different footing from employer's contribution, and delayed deposit beyond the prescribed due dates under the respective Acts is not allowable even if made before the return filing due date. Section 43B does not override section 36(1)(va) in relation to employees' contributions.

Conclusion: The disallowance of employees' contribution to PF and ESI was upheld and the issue was decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only on the disallowance of commission expenditure and interest expenditure, while the addition relating to delayed employees' contribution to PF and ESI was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Commission paid to non-resident agents for services rendered entirely outside India, without any permanent establishment or business connection in India, is not chargeable to tax in India and therefore does not trigger TDS disallowance; where an assessee's own funds are sufficient to cover investments in capital work-in-progress, a presumption arises that such investments were made from interest-free funds; delayed deposit of employees' contribution to statutory welfare funds is not deductible under section 36(1)(va).

---