ACIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI V. REGRIGERATED DISTRIBUTORS P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 5703/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2443 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 07-09-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

5 ITA NO.5703/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 6.2.3 AFTER CONSIDERING THE ARGUMENTS OF THE REVEN UE AND APPELLANT, HONBLE ITAT SMC BENCH VIDE PARAS 5 TO 8 OF ITS ORDER BEARING N.4506/MUM/2016 DATED 23.12.16 HELD A S UNDER: 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND CAREFULL Y GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT COMMISSION WAS PAID TO NON-RESIDENTS FOR PROCURING EXPORT ORDERS, THEREFOR E, NO INCOME ARISES IN INDIA AS THE ENTIRE SERVICES WERE RENDERE D OUTSIDE INDIA, HENCE, NO TAX WAS DEDUCTED AT SOURCE BY THE ASSESSE E IN RESPECT OF THE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION. THE ISSUE UNDER CONSI DERATION IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CASE O F GUJARAT RECLAIM AND RUBBER PRODUCTS LTD., 383 1TR 236 (BOMB AY), WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN CLEARLY HELD THAT NO TAX IS REQ UIRED TO BE DEDUCTED ON THE COMMISSION PAID TO FOREIGN AGENTS S INCE THE SAID INCOME DOES NOT ACCRUE OR ARISE IN INDIA. 7. I ALSO FOUND THAT RELIANCE PLACED BY THE AO ON THE PANAJI BENCH DECISION IN THE CASE OF SESA RESOURCES LTD., (SUPRA ) IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS SET ASI DE BY THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN SESA RESOURCES LTD., 287 CTR 89 REMIN DING THE MATTER BACK TO THE TRIBUNAL TO EXAMINE THE ASPECT I N LIGHT OF THE JUDGMENT OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CASE OF GUJARAT RECLAIM AND RUBBER PRODUCTS LTD.,(SUPRA). ACCORDINGLY, I SET AS IDE AND ALLOW THE APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. IN RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 9. WHEN THESE FACTS WERE POINTED OUT TO LD SR. D.R. , HE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENTIAL FACTS IN THIS YEAR AND A DMITTED THAT THE COMMISSION IS PAID TO SAME PARTIES. AS THE FACTS A ND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE IDENTICAL TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, WE AFFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 6 ITA NO.5703/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12-03- 2019. AADOSA KI AADOSA KI AADOSA KI AADOSA KI GAAO GAAOGAAO GAAOYANAA KULAO MAO IDNAMK YANAA KULAO MAO IDNAMK YANAA KULAO MAO IDNAMK YANAA KULAO MAO IDNAMK 15. 03.2019 KAO KI KAO KI KAO KI KAO KI GA GAGA GA (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) (MAHAVIR S INGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 12- - 03- 2019 BKP/SR.PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (A), MUMBAI. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//