TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 1067X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 3065 /AHD/2010 - - - Dated:- 27-6-2014 - SHRI G.C.GUPTA SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Tushar P. Hemani, A.R. For the Respondent : Shri B.L. Yadav. D.R. ORDER Anil Chaturvedi, Accountant Member This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of CIT(A)-IV, Ahmedabad dated 03.08.2010 for A.Y. 2007-08. 2. The facts as culled out from the material on record are as under. 3. Assessee is an individual stated to be engaged in the business of manufacturing of Chemicals. Assessee filed his return of income for A.Y. 2007-08 on 29.10.2007 declaring total income of ₹ 51,19,360/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter the assessment was framed under section 143(3) vide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dia. Thus, where such a nonresident was paid export commission, tax is not deductible at source. 4. Though the Assessee has raised various grounds, the only effective issue is about addition made under section 40(a)(i). 5. During the course of assessment proceedings, A.O noticed that Assessee had paid commission to two parties situated outside India, aggregating to ₹ 1,67,859/- but had not deducted TDS on such payment. In response to the query raised by A.O, Assessee interalia submitted that the parties to whom the commission have been paid have Permanent Establishment overseas and the services have also been provided overseas and they have no branches or representative in India and therefore on the commission paid to them no TD ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... son to interfere in his finding. The addition of ₹ 1,67,859/- is sustained. The first ground of appeal is accordingly dismissed. 6. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Assessee is now in appeal before us. Before us. the ld. A.R. reiterated the submissions made before CIT(A). It was further submitted that the sales commission was paid to non residents for booking sales order on behalf of the Assessee out of India both the parties have not provided any technical services and they have no permanent establishment in India. It was further submitted that the agents only booked sales order on behalf of Assessee and the Assessee has not received any technical services. It was further submitted that the provisions of Section 9(1)(vi)/(vii) ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dentical issue was before the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in the case of Panchmahal Steel Ltd. (supra), the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal decided the issue in favour of the Assessee by holding as under: 8. We have considered the rival submissions and the material available on record. The assessee specifically pleaded before the learned CIT(A) that tax was not deducted because income tax is deductible at source only from payments which are chargeable to tax under Income Tax Act. It was submitted that the amount was paid for commission in foreign currency was not chargeable to tax in India because these payments represented business income of non-resident and that none of the payees have permanent establishment or business connection i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
