TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (4) TMI 1051
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nds: "1. Because the CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 5,85,066/- claimed u/s 80IB of the Act. 2. Because the deduction of Rs. 5,85,066/- claimed u/s 80IB being in accordance with the provisions of law, the CIT(A) has erred in disallowing the same. 3. Because in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Arvind Footwear (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT in ITA No. 263 of 2010, order dated 27.08.2013, the deduction claimed u/s 801B should ought to have been allowed." 3. Though various grounds are raised but they all relate to deduction claimed u/s 80IB of the Act. During the course of hearing of the appeal, the learn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arly applicable on such assessee, and thus erred in coming to the conclusion that foreign agents do not fall within the meaning of "FTS" as described in section 9(1)(vii) of the I.T. Act. 3. That learned CIT (A) has ignored the provision of explanation to section 9 introduced by Finance Act 2007 with retrospective effect from 01.06.1976 to the effect that fee for service shall be taxable in India whether or not the non-resident has rendered service in India. 4. That Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and fact in relying on the decision of High Court where the amended provisions of section 9 are not taken into consideration. 5. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and fac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n note of the fact that in the immediately preceding year i.e. assessment year 2008-09, the similar view was taken by CIT(A), which was later on approved by the Tribunal. The relevant observation of CIT(A) is extracted hereunder for the sake of ready reference: "I have carefully considered the views expressed by the A.O. (while making the disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) for non deduction of tax at source on payment of Commission to Foreign Agent) as well as submissions made by the appellant. In view of the categorical finding of the Hon'ble ITAT in this regard, I agree with the submissions of appellant that the issuance of Circular no. 7 of 2009 dated 22-10-2009 withdrawing the circular no. 23 of 1969, 163 of 1975 an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of suspicion, leave aside any evidence to the effect that the agents were not only selling agents but also designers and technical advisors. The confirmation from the respective foreign agents that the foreign agents did not have any branch or PE in India further supports the case of the appellant. The A.O.'s observation that as a selling agent, the agent has to have managerial acumen and, therefore, hit by the provisions of Section 9(1)(vii), is baseless. The provisions of Section 9(1)(vii) deals with fees for technical services and it has to be read in that context. Thus, the aforesaid payments do not fall within the meaning of "FTS" as described in Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. Th....