ACIT, Madurai V. The Metal Powder Company Ltd., Madurai

ITA 1143/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7669 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 01-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTH IRS
• Assessee Lawyers: A S SRIRAMAN
• Keywords: Depreciation; Advance ruling; Unabsorbed depreciation
• Section: 80HHC; 80IB

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI . , . , BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R AND SHRI. G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./I.T.A. NO. 1143/MDS/2014 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-2011 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE I(1) MADURAI VS. THE METAL POWDER COMPANY LTD, MARAVANKULAM, THIRUMANGALAM. MADURAI 625 706. [PAN AAACT 4262E ] ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) ! ' # / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. A.V.SREEKANTH, IRS, JCIT. $% ! ' # /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. A.S. SRIRAMAN, ADVOCATE & ' ' ( /DATE OF HEARING : 22-02-2016 ) ' ' ( /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31-03-2016 / O R D E R PER G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT IS DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-I, MADURAI IN ITA NO.0088/12-13, DATED 03.02.2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011 PASSED U/S.143(3) AND 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 19 61 (HEREIN AFTER ITA NO.1143/MDS/2014. :- 2 -: REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED TWO SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS (I) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN DELET ING THE ADDITION OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB OF THE ACT RELYING ON THE JU DICIAL DECISIONS. (II) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN D ELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION PAID TO FOREIGN AGENT WI THOUT DEDUCTION OF TAX U/S.195 OF THE ACT. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSEE IS IN TH E BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF METALLIC POWDERS AND FIL ED RETURN OF INCOME ON 12.10.2010 WITH TOTAL INCOME OF <20,26,75 ,167/- AND RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S.143(1) AND GRANTED REFUND. SUBSE QUENTLY, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS AND NOTICE U/S .143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED. IN COMPLIANCE TO NOTICE, THE LD. AUTHO RISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED FROM TIME TO TIME AND FURN ISHED INFORMATION. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS C LAIMED DEDUCTION U/S.80IB OF THE ACT WERE THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING TWO UNITS (I) ALUMINUM ALLOY INGOT PLANT (II) ALUMINUM PASTE UNIT VI AND WHILE CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S.80IB OF THE ACT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SET OFF LOSS OF ALUMINUM ALLOY INGOT PLANT AND CLAIMED DEDU CTION ON POSITIVE INCOME BUT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT AS PER THE EARLIER ORDER OF ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, THE AGGREGATE OF ITA NO.1143/MDS/2014. :- 3 -: TWO UNITS HAS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTI ON U/S.80IB OF THE ACT AND RELIED ON THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( APPEALS) ORDER, AND MADE DISALLOWANCE OF <1,10,37,553/-. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE COMPANY HAD PAID FOREIGN AGENCY COMM ISSION IN FOREIGN CURRENCY TO FOREIGN AGENT WITHOUT DEDUCTION OF TAX ON <47,36,182/-. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE EXPLAINED THAT CO MMISSION WAS PAID FOR WORKS OF FOREIGN AGENT AND DO NOT HAVE ANY EST ABLISHMENT IN INDIA AND HENCE ARE NOT LIABLE TO BE TAXED IN INDIA. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE CBDT CIRCULARS ARE WITHDRAWN AND AS CONTRACT SERVICES RENDERED BY THE OVERSEAS AGENT COMES UNDER THE PURV IEW OF TAXABILITY. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER RELIED ON THE AUTHORITY F OR ADVANCE RULING IN THE CASE OF M/S. SKF BOILERS AND DRIERS PVT. LTD ( AAR NO.983-984 OF 2012) AND ELABORATED THE FINDINGS IN ORDER RELYING ON THE PROVISIONS APPLICABLE U/SEC. 195 OF THE ACT AND DISALLOWED < 47,36,182/- FOR NON DEDUCTION OF TDS U/S.40(A)(I) OF THE ACT. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WITH ABOVE ADDITIONS AND OTHER DISALLOWANCES ASS ESSED TOTAL INCOME <25,14,99,930/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER, THE ASSESS EE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 4. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE RAISED GROUNDS O N THE TWO DISPUTED ISSUES THAT THE ADJUSTMENT OF LOSS OF ONE UNIT AGAINST PROFIT OF ANOTHER UNIT BY LD. AO WITHOUT FOLLOWING EARLIER YEARS ITA NO.1143/MDS/2014. :- 4 -: ASSESSMENT ORDER 2007-08 TO 2009-2010 WERE PROFIT O F UNIT ALONE IS CONSIDERED FOR 80IB DEDUCTION WITHOUT ANY ADJUSTMEN T. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS AND FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND DELETED T HE ADDITION BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES O WN CASE AS OBSERVED IN PARA 5.2 AT PAGE 5 AS UNDER:- ITAT IN ITS ORDER IN ITA NO.782 TO 787/MDS/2012 & I TAT 869 TO 874/MDS/2012 DATED 21.02.2013 HAS ALLOWED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE FOLLOWING REMARKS: IN LATER DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MEPCO IND USTRIES 294 ITR 121 IT WAS HELD THAT THE DEDUCTION U/S.80IA AND 801B COULD BE WORKED OUT INDEPENDENTLY WITHOUT EFFE CTING ANY INTER SE ADJUSTMENT OF LOSS AND PROFIT BETWEEN VARIOUS UNITS. IF AN ASSESSEE HAD DIFFERENT UNITS RESULTING IN POS ITIVE GROSS TOTAL IN VIEW OF THE DECISIONS OF HON'BLE JURISDICT ION HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MACMILLAN INDIA LTD. ( 295 ITR 67), CIT VS. RATHORE BROTHERS (254 ITR 656), CIT VS . SURESH B. MEHTA (291 ITR 462) AND CIT VS. M. GANI A ND CO. (301 ITR 381), EACH OF THE UNIT HAD TO BE SEPAR ATELY CONSIDERED FOR WORKING OUT DEDUCTION U/S.80IA OR 80 18 OR 80HHC OF THE ACT, ONE SEPARATE ACCOUNT WERE BEING MENTIONED AND THERE WAS NO INTERLACING AND INTERDEPENDENCE. IN THE GIVEN CASE BEFORE US, ASSES SEE HAD POSITIVE GROSS TOTAL INCOME. THEREFORE, EACH UNDERT AKING HAD TO BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY FOR WORKING OUT DEDUCTI ON U/S.80IA OF THE ACT, SINCE, THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME WAS POSITIVE. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN GIVING SUCH DIRECTIONS. 5.3 THUS THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE ABOVE ORDER OF HON'BLE ITAT IN APPELLANTS OWN CASE FOR EARLIER YEARS WHICH IS IN ITS FAVOUR. THE ADDITION IS DELETED. FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISIONS, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION. AGGRIEVED BY T HE COMMISSIONER OF ITA NO.1143/MDS/2014. :- 5 -: INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ORDER, THE REVENUE ASSAILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. BEFORE US, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEH EMENTLY ARGUED THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND THE DECISION OF APEX COURT. THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME SHALL BE ARRIVED AFTER ADJUSTMENT OF LOSS OF OTHER DIVISION AGAINST PROFIT DERIVED FROM INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING AND PRAYED FOR ALLOWING THE APPEAL . 6. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSE E SUBMITTED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALLOWED TH E DEDUCTIONS IN ITA NOS.782, 783 AND OTHERS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2 002-03, 2003-04 WHEREIN REFERRED AT PAGE 4 TO 7 IS AS UNDER:- WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS AND HEARD THE RIVAL SU BMISSIONS. FOR ALL THE IMPUGNED YEARS, WHAT WE NOTE SPECIFICALLY F ROM THE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) IS THAT GROSS TOTAL INCOME OF T HE ASSESSEE WAS POSITIVE. ASSESSEE HAD NO CARRIED FORWARD LOSS OF E ARLIER YEARS AS WELL. THAT GROSS TOTAL INCOME FOR ALL THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS WAS POSITIVE, WAS NOT DISPUTED BY THE LEARNED D.R. FURTHER, ASSESSEE HAD RETURNED POSITIVE TOTAL INCOME FOR ALL THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS, AND THEREFORE, BY NECESSARY IMPLI CATION ITS GROSS TOTAL INCOME, BEFORE THE DEDUCTIONS CLAIMED U NDER CHAPTER VIA, WHATEVER BE THAT AMOUNT, WOULD HAVE ONLY BEEN POSITIVE. SO, THE ONLY QUESTION THAT REMAINS IS, WHEN THE GROSS T OTAL INCOME IS POSITIVE, A DEDUCTION UNDER SECTIONS 80-IA AND 80-I B CAN BE WORKED OUT INDEPENDENTLY WITHOUT SETTING OFF LOSSES OF UNITS ON WHICH SUCH DEDUCTION WAS NOT BEING CLAIMED. IN OUR OPINION, THIS QUESTION STANDS ALREADY ANSWERED BY HON'BLE JURISDI CTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THEIR DECISION IN THE CASE OF CHAMUNDI TEX TILES (SILK MILLS) LTD. V. CIT (341 ITR 488). THERE THE QUESTION WAS R EGARDING CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHC AND WHETHER SUCH D EDUCTION ITA NO.1143/MDS/2014. :- 6 -: COULD BE ALLOWED WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE RESULTS OF A UNIT, WHICH WAS NOT HAVING ANY PROFITS. IT WAS HELD BY THEIR LO RDSHIPS THAT BY VIRTUE OF THE DECISION OF HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF IPCA LABORATORIES LTD. V. CIT (266 ITR 521), UNDISPUTEDL Y ONLY AN ASSESSEE HAVING POSITIVE PROFITS COULD CLAIM SUCH A DEDUCTION. THEIR LORDSHIP ALSO HELD THAT FOR ARRIVING AT SUCH PROFIT, INCOME FROM VARIOUS UNITS HAD TO BE CALCULATED AND IF ONE OF THE UNITS WAS RUNNING AT A LOSS, GROSS TOTAL INCOME HAD TO BE ARR IVED CONSIDERING SUCH LOSS ALSO. ULTIMATELY, IF THE GROSS TOTAL INCO ME WAS A LOSS, CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION WAS TO BE REJECTED. SECTIONS 80 HHC OR 80-IA OR 80-IB FOR THAT MATTER, ARE ALL CONTROLLED BY SEC TION 80AB OF THE ACT. GROSS TOTAL INCOME MEANS GROSS TOTAL INCOME COMPUTED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THIS WAS CLEARLY REI TERATED BY HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF SYNCO INDUSTRIES LTD. (SU PRA). HON'BLE APEX COURT HELD THAT GROSS TOTAL INCOME HAD TO BE A RRIVED AT AFTER MAKING DEDUCTIONS AS PER APPROPRIATE COMPUTATION PR OVISIONS, INCLUDING INCOME UNDER SECTIONS 60 TO 64, ADJUSTMEN T OF INTER SE LOSSES AND AFTER SETTING OFF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES AND UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION. ONLY IF RESULTANT GROSS TO TAL INCOME WAS POSITIVE, AN ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION UN DER CHAPTER VIA OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, WHERE ASSESSEE IS HAVING M ORE THAN ONE UNIT, WHERE ONE UNIT IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION AND OTHER UNIT OR UNITS ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION AND IF THE GROSS TOT AL INCOME IS POSITIVE, DESPITE THE LOSS IN ONE OF SUCH UNITS, DE CISIONS OF HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF IPCA LABORATORIES LTD. (S UPRA) AND SYNCO INDUSTRIES LTD. (SUPRA) WOULD HAVE NOT MUCH A PPLICABILITY. IN SUCH CASES, WHERE AN ASSESSEE IS CARRYING ON VARIOU S ACTIVITIES, EVEN IF CENTRALIZED ACCOUNTS ARE MAINTAINED, SO LON G AS INTERLACING, INTERCONNECTIVITY OR INTERDEPENDENCE OF VARIOUS UNI TS WAS NOT THERE, VARIOUS ACTIVITIES HAVE TO BE TREATED AS SEP ARATE AND DISTINCT, AS HELD BY HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF WATER FALL ESTATES LTD. V. CIT (219 ITR 563). HON'BLE APEX COU RT IN THE CASE OF L.M. CHHABDA & SONS. V. CIT (65 ITR 638) HAS ALS O HELD THAT WHERE AN ASSESSEE CARRIED ON BUSINESS VENTURES AT D IFFERENT PLACES, THERE WAS NO GENERAL PRINCIPLE THAT THEY SH OULD ALL BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF SINGLE BUSINESS. THUS, IF AN ASSESSEE HAD DIFFERENT UNITS RESULTING IN POSITIVE GROSS TOTAL I NCOME, IN VIEW OF DECISIONS OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN T HE CASE OF CIT V. MACMILLAN INDIA LTD. (295 ITR 67), CIT V. RATHORE B ROTHERS (254 ITR 656), CIT VS. SURESH B. MEHTA (291 ITR 462) AND CIT V. M. GANI AND CO. (301 ITR 381), EACH OF THE UNIT HAD TO BE SEPARATELY CONSIDERED FOR WORKING OUT DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IA OR 80-IB OR 80HHC OF THE ACT, ONCE SEPARATE ACCOUNTS WERE BE ING MAINTAINED AND THERE WAS NO INTERLACING AND INTERDE PENDENCE. IN THE GIVEN CASE BEFORE US, ASSESSEE HAD POSITIVE GRO SS TOTAL INCOME. THEREFORE, EACH UNDERTAKING HAD TO BE CONSI DERED SEPARATELY FOR WORKING OUT DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IA OF THE ACT, SINCE THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME WAS POSITIVE. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT CIT(APPEALS) WAS JUSTIFIED IN GIVING S UCH DIRECTIONS ITA NO.1143/MDS/2014. :- 7 -: AND PRAYED FOR DISMISSAL OF REVENUE APPEAL. 7. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD, JUDICIAL DECISIONS CITED. WE, RESPECTFULLY , FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 782 & 783/MDS/2012, DATE D 21.02.2013 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, UPHOLD THE ORDER OF COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND DISMISS THE GROUND OF THE REVENUE. 8. IN RESPECT OF OTHER GROUND, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS AND CONSIDERED THE FINDINGS AND ALSO MADE ELABORATE DISCUSSIONS OF THE ADVANCE RUL ING AND CBDT CIRCULARS AND THE SUBMISSIONS AT PARA 6.2 OF THE OR DER AND STATEMENT AT PARA 6.3 AS UNDER:- APPELLANT FILED THE DETAILS OF THE EVIDENCE FOR T HE COMMISSION PAID IN THE FORM OF THE INVOICES RAISED BY THE APPE LLANT, WHERE THE WORD COMMISSION IS CLEARLY MENTIONED INCLUDING DETAILS OF THE EXPORT ORDER TO WHICH THE COMMISSION RELATES TO . ALSO FILED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ADDRESS OF A LL THE PERSONS IN THE INVOICE IS OUTSIDE INDIA, HAVE NO BU SINESS PRESENCE IN INDIA AND THE PAYMENTS ARE MADE IN FOREIGN EXCHANGE THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS A ND CERTIFICATES ARE SUBMITTED TO THE BANKS FOR PAYING THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE. THE DETAILS OF THE COMMISSION ARE AS UNDE R. MO NTH NAME ADDRESS USD AMOUNT (RS) JUNE, 09 MEDITRADE LEBANAON P.O.BOX 90 - 514, JDEIDET EI- MTN, LEBANON 3071.00 148,421.43 JULY, 09 ARUN K. CHOTOPODYAY 4206, HARPERS CROSS, LANG HORN PA 19047, USA 20704.50 1,007,895.06 AUG, 09 QUIMIALMEL, S.A. SPAIN CL SAN ROQUE, 1600.00 77,984.00 ITA NO.1143/MDS/2014. :- 8 -: 15 CASTELLOON DE LA PLANA SPAIN AUG, 09 BOWIN SUCCESS COMPANY, KAWLOON FLAT C 4/F, 946 CANTON ROAD, KAWLOON, HONGKONG 570.00 27,898.50 AUG, 09 PERCEPT GENERAL TRADING CO LIC SHARAGH P.O.BOX 26475 SHARAGH UAE 42113.83 2,052,627.59 SEP. 09 AURN K. CHOTOPADYAY 4206, HARPERS CROSS, LANG HORN PA 19047, USA 7721.76 380,050.59 DEC. 09 QUIMIALMEL, S.A. SPAIN CL SAN ROQUE, 15 CASTELLOON DE LA PLANA SPAIN 1,600.00 75,008.00 DEC. 09 PERCEPT GENERAL TRADING CO LIC SHARAGH P.O.BOX 26475 SHARAGH UAE 16496.80 775,349.00 DEC. 09 LOUIS T. LEONAOWENS, THAILAND LTD 177/1, BUT BUILDING, 10 TH FLOOR, SURAWONGSE ROAD, BANGRAK, BANKOK, THAILAND, 804.00 37,691.52 DEC. 09 CALUS JD SOUZA KUWAIT. P.O.BOX NO.9805, SALMIA 22099, KUWAIT. 3301.50 153,255,63.00 TOTAL 4,736,181,92 / - THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONSID ERED THE SUPREME COURT DECISION AND JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COUR T DECISION AND RELIED ON THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH TRIBUNAL DECISION O F ITO VS. FAIZAN SHOES (P) LTD (2013) 34 TAXMANN.COM 79 AND DELETED THE ADDITION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 9. BEFORE US, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THE GROUNDS THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX ITA NO.1143/MDS/2014. :- 9 -: (APPEALS) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION WITHOUT CO NSIDERING THE FACTS AND PROVISIONS OF SEC. 195 AND APPLICABILITY OF SEC . 210(A)(I) AND CBDT CIRCULAR AND RELIED ON LOWER AUTHORITIES ORDER AND PRAYED FOR SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 10. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF ASSESSEE V EHEMENTLY ARGUED AND RELIED ON ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND PRAYED FOR DISMISSAL OF REVENUE APPEA L. 11. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND JUDICIAL DECISIONS. WE RESPECTFULLY FO LLOWING THE DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF FAIZAN SHOES (P) LTD (2013) 34 TAXMANN.COM 79 WHEREIN HELD AS UNDER:- ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS ENGAGED IN BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE AND EXPORT OF SHOE UPPERS AND LEATHER SHOES - IT PAID CERTAIN COMMISSION TO NON-RESIDENTS FOR PROCURING EXPORT ORDERS - SINCE ASSESSEE DID NO T DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE WHILE MAKING SAID PAYMENTS, ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED SAME UNDER SECTION 40(A)(I) - IT WAS NOTED FROM RECORDS THAT NON- RESIDENTS WERE ONLY PROCURING ORDERS FOR ASSESSEE A ND FOLLOWING UP PAYMENTS AND APART FROM THAT NO OTHER SERVICES WERE BEING RENDERED - WHETHER SINCE NON- RESIDENTS WERE NOT PROVIDING ANY TECHNICAL SERVICES TO ASSESSEE, PAYMENTS MADE TO THEM DID NOT FALL UNDER CATEGORY OF ROYALTY OR FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES U NDER SECTION 9(1 )(VI) - HELD, YES - WHETHER EVEN OTHERWISE, SINCE COMMISSION PAID TO NON-RESIDENTS WAS NOT TAXABLE IN INDIA, ASSESSEE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE WHILE MAKING SAID PAYMENTS - HELD, YES - WHETHER IN VIEW OF ABOVE, IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE WAS TO BE DELETED - HELD, YES ITA NO.1143/MDS/2014. :- 10 -: WE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX (APPEALS) AND DISMISS THE REVENUE APPEAL. 12. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THURSDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) # $% / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( & . ' ( ) (G. PAVAN KUMAR) ) $% / JUDICIAL MEMBER *& / CHENNAI + / DATED: 31 ST MARCH, 2016. KV , ' $'./ 0/' / COPY TO: 1 . ! / APPELLANT 2. $% ! / RESPONDENT 3. 1' () / CIT(A) 4. 1' / CIT 5. /4 5 $'6 / DR 6. 5 7 8 & / GF