Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.26 seconds)
Carroro India Private Ltd.,, Pune vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax,, on 2 September, 2021 cites

The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Kikani Exports Pvt. Ltd on 25 August, 2014

37. Thereafter, the assessee submitted detailed submissions wherein, it explained that commission was paid to the overseas agents for the export orders/business procured by the agents in overseas territories. The fact of the 20 ITA No. 823/PUN/2016 ITA No.835/PUN/2016 A.Y.2011-12 matter was that the assessee has paid the amount of commission to foreign agents for the services rendered by them outside India. The assessee also cited the judgment in the case of The commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kikani Exports Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 369 ITR 96 (Mad.) wherein it was held that the services rendered by the non-resident agent can at best be called as a service for completion of the export commitment and would not fall within the definition of fees for technical services and therefore, section 9 of the Act is not applicable to the instant case and consequently, section 195 of the Act does not come into play. The assessee has further submitted that it is a settled position of law that the retainer ship charges/commission paid to overseas non-resident agents for promoting assessee‟s business in foreign countries is not in the nature of fees for technical services and therefore, is not liable to be taxed in India. The assessee has relied on the following decisions:
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 15 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Kohinoor Tobacco Products (P) Ltd. on 28 February, 2005

44. The Ld. AR on this issue relied on the decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kohinoor Projects (P) Ltd., IT Appeal No.1124 of 2017 dated 27th January, 2020 reported in 425 ITR 700 (Bombay). In this case, the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court had held that Section 14A would not apply when no exempt income was received or was receivable during the relevant previous year. That when the matter was before the Tribunal, it had considered the contentions of the 23 ITA No. 823/PUN/2016 ITA No.835/PUN/2016 A.Y.2011-12 assessee that no exempt income was claimed by the assessee u/s.14A of the Act and therefore, no disallowance could have been made by the Assessing Officer by invoking section 14A r.w.Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 21 - R V Raveendran - Full Document
1   2 Next