TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 458
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rred to as the "Act") and relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: "1.1 The order passed u/s 250 dated 08.01.2025 for A.Y. 2017-18 by the CIT(A), Ahmedabad-2, upholding the disallowance of Rs. 25,12,447/- made by the AO is wholly illegal, unlawful, and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. 1.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in not carrying out any inquiry with regard to the applicability of the provisions of Income tax Act and thereby violated the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the appellant shall be granted opportunity to produce additional evidences. 2.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that even if such commission payments were deemed to accrue or arise in India under the domestic tax law, they would be exempt from tax under the respective Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAS) between India and the countries in which the non-resident agents are based. 3.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not granting opportunity of being heard conferencing. 3.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that granting opportunity of being heard via video conferencing facility is mandatory in the new regime of Faceless appeal process. 3.3 The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have granted opportunity of being heard via videoconferencing. 4.1 The Appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ll Plastic Co. Ltd. Thailand 9,89,880 3 Halle System Company Iran 14,89,310 4 Parabor Colombia SAS USA 4,02,856 Total 83,74,823 6. The fact that these are non-resident parties/ foreign agent is not disputed and even the AO treated them as non-residents and finding no tax deducted at source thereon he referred to the provisions of Section 195 of the Act for tax deduction at source on payments made to non-resident and thereafter invoked Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and disallowed 30% of the expenses. It is to be noted that the disallowance on account of payments made to non-resident without deducting tax at source attracts the provision of Section 40(a)(i) of the act and not 40(a)(ia) of the Act which re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unsel for the assessee drew our attention to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in A.Y. 2014-15 pointing out of parity of facts in the said case and also draw our attention to the facts of the said case at page no.21 of the order. He pointed out that the parties to whom commission was paid in A.Y. 2014-15 were identical to that in the impugned year. He, thereafter, drew our attention to the decisions of the Ld. CIT(A) at para 2.29 of his order, wherein he pointed out that the Ld. CIT(A) had referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Toshoku Limited, [1980] 125 ITR 525 (SC) for the proposition that if operations of non-resident agents are not carried out in the taxable territory, no income can be deemed to be accrued ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e present case the parties were identical. The reasoning of the AO also was identical who had relied on the decision of the AAR in the case of SKF Boilers and Driers (P.) Ltd. (supra) and Rajiv Malhotra (supra). He pointed out these facts from para 3.8 of the order of the AO. He further pointed out that the AO had noted as a matter of fact in the said para that the agents had rendered services abroad and solicited orders abroad. He contended, therefore, that the facts of the present case were identical to that in the case of the assessee for A.Y. 2014-15, wherein the Ld. CIT(A) had directed the deletion of disallowance following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Toshoku Limited (supra) and he contended that the authoriti....