TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 1120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 40(a)(i) in respect of commissions paid to foreign concerns; and II. CIT(Appeals) directing the Assessing Officer to recompute deduction u/s. 10B by excluding freight expenditure both from export turn-over and the total turnover. 3. The assessee is a company registered under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956, engaged in the business of manufacturing and export of pillows and cushions. The assessee filed return of income for the AY. 2009-10 on 30-09-2009 declaring its taxable income as ₹ 69,94,988/-. Since the assessee is exportoriented unit located at MEPZ, the assessee claimed deduction of ₹ 47,76,558/- under section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as the Act ). The case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... India decided on 11-06-2013. On the second issue of deduction of freight expenses from export turnover as well as total turnover, the ld. Counsel submitted that the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee in the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO Vs. M/s. Saksoft Ltd reported as 121 TTJ Chennai (SB). 5.We have heard the submissions made by the representatives of both the sides and have perused the orders of the authorities below. The assessee has made commission payments to two foreign agents: Darrow Lane Corporations, Newyork, USA and A.J.M. Schonk B.V. Houten, Netherlands for procuring the orders for export. As is evident from the facts of the case, the services have been rendered by the agents outside In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of G.E. India Technology Centre P. Ltd., Vs. CIT reported as 327 ITR 456 wherein the Hon ble Supreme Court after considering the judgment in the case of Transmission Corporation of AP Ltd., Vs. CIT (239 ITR 587) SC and decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Samsung Electronics Company Ltd., (supra) has held that mere remittance to non-resident will not make it obligatory on the part of person making payment to deduct tax at source, unless remittance contains wholly or partly taxable income. The Hon ble Apex Court has rejected the view taken by the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Samsung Electronics Company Ltd., (supra) which has been relied upon by the ld. DR. For the aforesaid reasons, this ground of appeal o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
