The Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai v. Mainetti (India) P Ltd
[Citation -2020-LL-0805]

Citation 2020-LL-0805
Appellant Name The Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai
Respondent Name Mainetti (India) P Ltd.
Court HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 05/08/2020
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags allowability of expenditure • deduction of tax at source • commission received • sales commission • commission paid • monetary limit • tax effect
Bot Summary: This Tax Case Appeal has been filed by the Revenue, calling in question the correctness of the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, B Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.No. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Tribunal was right in deleting the disallowance of Rs.1,46,16,995/- debited by the assessee as commission paid to its group concern abroad 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Tribunal was right in not considering explanation below sub-section of Section 9 introduced by Finance Act, 2010 with effect from 01.06.1976 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Tribunal was right in not considering the fact that the overseas sales commission received by the assessee would come under the category of 'any other sum chargeable under the Income Tax Act, 1961' bringing it within the ambit of deduction of tax at source under Chapter - XlVII B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 4. Whether the non-compliance of the provisions relating to deduction of tax at source on overseas sales commission would be hit by the allowability of expenditure as per Section 40(a)(i) of the Act 5. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel brought to our notice the Circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes vide Circular No.17/2019 dated 8th August 2019, wherein, it is stipulated that appeals shall not be filed/pursued by the Department before the High Court in cases where the tax effect does not exceed Rs.1,00,00,000/-. In the instant case, the tax effect is said to be less than the monetary limit imposed and therefore, the Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed as withdrawn, keeping open the substantial questions of law for determination in appropriate cases.


Order dt.05.08.2020 in T.C.A.No.377 of 2011 Commr. I.T., Chennai vs. M/s.Mainetti (India) P Ltd. 1/4 IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 05.08.2020 CORAM HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY T.C.A.No.377 of 2011 Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai ... Appellant vs. M/s.Mainetti (India) P Ltd. 138/20, Florida Towers, 3rd Floor Nelson Manickam Road Chennai-600029 Respondent Prayer ::- Appeal filed against order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras B Bench, Chennai, dated 25.03.2011 in I.T.A.No.2201/Mds/2010. For appellant : Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, Sr.Standing Counsel ORDER (Made by DR.VINEET KOTHARI, J.) Court was held by Video Conference, as per Resolution of Full Court dated 3 July 2020, by Judges at their respective residence and counsel, staff of Court appearing from their respective residences. http://www.judis.nic.in Order dt.05.08.2020 in T.C.A.No.377 of 2011 Commr. I.T., Chennai vs. M/s.Mainetti (India) P Ltd. 2/4 2. This Tax Case Appeal has been filed by Revenue, calling in question correctness of order passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, B Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.No.2201/Mds/2010 by raising following substantial questions of law: "1. Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Income Tax Tribunal was right in deleting disallowance of Rs.1,46,16,995/- debited by assessee as commission paid to its group concern abroad ? 2. Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Income Tax Tribunal was right in not considering explanation below sub-section (2) of Section 9 introduced by Finance Act, 2010 with effect from 01.06.1976? 3. Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Income Tax Tribunal was right in not considering fact that overseas sales commission received by assessee would come under category of 'any other sum chargeable under Income Tax Act, 1961' bringing it within ambit of deduction of tax at source under Chapter - XlVII B of Income Tax Act, 1961? 4. Whether non-compliance of provisions relating to deduction of tax at source on overseas sales commission would be hit by allowability of expenditure as per Section 40(a)(i) of Act? 5. Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Income Tax Tribunal was correct in its conclusion based on evidence available on record in holding that overseas commission paid to its group concerns were not to be disallowed especially when there http://www.judis.nic.in Order dt.05.08.2020 in T.C.A.No.377 of 2011 Commr. I.T., Chennai vs. M/s.Mainetti (India) P Ltd. 3/4 was no written agreement and there was no involvement nor any debit invoices raised warranting payment of such commission?" 3. When matter is taken up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel brought to our notice Circular issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes vide Circular No.17/2019 dated 8th August 2019, wherein, it is stipulated that appeals shall not be filed/pursued by Department before High Court in cases where tax effect does not exceed Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore). 4. In instant case, tax effect is said to be less than monetary limit imposed and therefore, Appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed as withdrawn, keeping open substantial questions of law for determination in appropriate cases. No costs. 5. Registry is directed to send copy of judgment to respondent/ Assessee. (V.K.,J.) (K.R.,J.) 05.08.2020 kpl/tar To M/s.Mainetti (India) P Ltd. 138/20, Florida Towers, 3rd Floor Nelson Manickam Road Chennai-600 029 http://www.judis.nic.in Order dt.05.08.2020 in T.C.A.No.377 of 2011 Commr. I.T., Chennai vs. M/s.Mainetti (India) P Ltd. 4/4 DR.VINEET KOTHARI, J. and KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J. (tar) T.C.A.No.377 of 2011 05.08.2020 http://www.judis.nic.in Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai v. Mainetti (India) P Ltd
Report Error