Saturday, 2 November 2019

Filing of appeals to Appellate Tribunal under the provisions of Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988


Section 46(1) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 provides that any person aggrieved by the order of the Adjudicating Authority of holding the property as benami or not, can file an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal within 45 days from the date of the order passed by Adjudicating Authority. An appeal against the order of the Appellate Tribunal may be preferred in the High Court within 60 days.

Text of Section 46
APPEALS TO APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
46. (1) Any person, including the Initiating Officer, aggrieved by an order of the Adjudicating Authority may prefer an appeal in such form and along with such fees, as may be prescribed, to the Appellate Tribunal against the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority under sub-section (3) of section 26, within a period of forty-five days from the date of the order.
[1][(1A) Any person aggrieved by an order passed by the authority under section 54A may prefer an appeal in such form along with such fees, as may be prescribed, to the Appellate Tribunal against the said order within a period of forty-five days from the date of that order.]
(2) The Appellate Tribunal may entertain any appeal after the said period of forty-five days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented, by sufficient cause, from filing the appeal in time.
(3) On receipt of an appeal under sub-section (1), [1][or sub-section (1A)] the Appellate Tribunal may, after giving the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit.
(4) An Appellate Tribunal while deciding the appeal shall have the power—
(a)

to determine a case finally, where the evidence on record is sufficient;
(b)

to take additional evidence or to require any evidence to be taken by the Adjudicating Authority, where the Adjudicating Authority has refused to admit evidence, which ought to have been admitted;
(c)

to require any document to be produced or any witness to be examined for the purposes of proceeding before it;
(d)

to frame issues which appear to the Appellate Tribunal essential for adjudication of the case and refer them to the Adjudicating Authority for determination;
(e)

to pass final order and affirm, vary or reverse an order of adjudication passed by the Adjudicating Authority and pass such other order or orders as may be necessary to meet the ends of justice.
(5) The Appellate Tribunal, as far as possible, may hear and finally decide the appeal within a period of one year from the last date of the month in which the appeal is filed.
KEY NOTE
1.  Inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019, with effect from 01.09.2019

Appeals to the Appellate Tribunal [Rule 10]
Text of Rule 10 of Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Rules, 2016
10. (1) An appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under sub-section (1) of section 46 of the Act shall be filed in Form No. 3 annexed to these rules.
(2) At the time of filing, every appeal shall be accompanied by a fee of ten thousand rupees.
(3) The appeal shall set forth concisely and under distinct head the grounds of objection to the order appealed against and such grounds shall be numbered consecutively; and shall specify the address of service at which notice or other processes of the Appellate Tribunal may be served on the appellant and the date on which the order appealed against was served on the appellant.
(4) Where the appeal is preferred after the expiry of the period of forty-five days referred to in sub-section (1) of section 46, it shall be accompanied by a petition, in quadruplicate, duly verified and supported by the documents, if any, relied upon by the appellant, showing cause as to how the appellant had been prevented from preferring the appeal within the period of forty-five days.

Appeal before Appellate Tribunal - Jurisdiction
At present jurisdiction is with the Appellate Tribunal established under section 25 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) located at New Delhi.

Fee of filing of Appeal
At the time of filing, every appeal shall be accompanied by a fee of Rs. 10,000/-.

Hearing before Appellate Tribunal
v  Appeal to be filed within 45 days from date of order passed by Adjudicating Authority.
v  Appeal to be heard by division bench.
v  No time limit to pass order by the Tribunal.
v  CAs are authorized to appear before Appellate Tribunal under section 48.

An appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under section 46(1) of the Act shall be filed in Form No. 3 
(a)       At the time of filing, every appeal shall be accompanied by a fee of Rs.10,000.
(b)      The appeal shall set forth concisely and under distinct head the grounds of objection to the order appealed against and such grounds shall be numbered consecutively; and shall specify the address of service at which notice or other processes of the Appellate Tribunal may be served on the appellant and the date on which the order appealed against was served on the appellant.
(c)       Where the appeal is preferred after the expiry of the period of 45 days referred to in under section  46(1), it shall be accompanied by a petition, in quadruplicate, duly verified and supported by the documents, if any, relied upon by the appellant, showing cause as to how the appellant had been prevented from preferring the appeal within the period of 45 days.
Filing of belated appeals [Section 46(2)]
Section 46(2) provides that the Appellate Tribunal may entertain any appeal after the said period of 45 days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented, by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time.

Where appeal is preferred after the expiry of the period of 45 days refered to in section 46(1), it shall be accompanied by a petition, in quadruplicate, duly verified and supported by the documents, if any, relied upon by the appellant, showing cause as to how the appellant had been prevented from preferring the appeal within the period of 45 days.

Decision on appeal by Appellant Tribunal [Section 46(3)]
Section 46(3) provides that on receipt of an appeal, the Appellate Tribunal may, after giving the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit.

An Appellate Tribunal while deciding the appeal shall have the power [Section - 46(4)]
(a)       to determine a case finally, where the evidence on record is sufficient;
(b)      to take additional evidence or to require any evidence to be taken by the Adjudicating Authority, where the Adjudicating Authority has refused to admit evidence, which ought to have been admitted;
(c)       to require any document to be produced or any witness to be examined for the purposes of proceeding before it;
(d)

to frame issues which appear to the Appellate Tribunal essential for adjudication of the case and refer them to the Adjudicating Authority for determination;
(e)

to pass final order and affirm, vary or reverse an order of adjudication passed by the Adjudicating Authority and pass such other order or orders as may be necessary to meet the ends of justice.

Appellate Tribunal has the power to pass final order [Section 46(4)(e)]
Appellate Tribunal has the power to pass final order and affirm, vary or reverse an order of adjudication passed by the Adjudicating Authority and pass such other order or orders as may be necessary to meet the ends of justice

As per Section 46(5)
(a)       to frame issues which appear to the Appellate Tribunal essential for adjudication of the case and refer them to the Adjudicating Authority for determination;
(b)      oto pass final order and affirm, vary or reverse an order of adjudication passed by the Adjudicating Authority and pass such other order or orders as may be necessary to meet the ends of justice.
(c)       The Appellate Tribunal as far as possible, may hear and finally decide the appeal within a period of one year from the last date of the month in which the appeal is filed.

Orders which are appealable before Appellate Tribunal
S. No.
Section of PBPT Act
Order
Authority passing the order
(i)
Section 26(3)
Order of adjudication (holding the property in question to be benami property or holding it not to be benami property) and confirming order of attachment
Adjudicating Authority
(ii)
Section 54A
Order imposing penalty
By authority who issued summons under section 19 or authority who called for information under section 21

Orders which are not appealable before Appellate Tribunal
S. No.
Section of PBPT Act
Order
Authority passing the order
(i)
Section 24(3)
Provisional attachment of property
Initiating Officer (IO)
(ii)
Section 24(4)
Order continuing provisional attachment of property
Initiating Officer (IO)
(iii)
Section 24(4)
Provisional attachment of property if not done so earlier
Initiating Officer (IO)
(iv)
Section 26(5)
Order provisionally attaching a property other than that referred by IO
Adjudicating Officer
(v)
Section 27(1)
Order confiscating a property adjudged to benami property under section 26(3)
Adjudicating Officer
(vi)
Section 29(2)
Order to person in possession of confiscated benami property to surrender deliver possession to administrator or his authorised person.
Administrator
(vii)
Section 47
Order amending order passed to rectify mistake apparent from record
Any authority

Adjudicating Authority appointed under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the Prevention of Money laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003) shall discharge the functions of the Adjudicating Authority under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Revenue)
NOTIFICATION
New Delhi, the 1st November, 2018
S.O. 5608(E).—In exercise of powers conferred by section 71 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (45 of 1988) (hereafter referred to as the said Act) and in suppression of notification number S.O. 3288(E) dated the 25th October, 2016, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such suppression, the Central Government hereby notifies that,─
(i) the Adjudicating Authority appointed under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the Prevention of Money laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003) shall discharge the functions of the Adjudicating Authority under the said Act, for the period beginning on 1st day of November, 2016 and ending on the date preceding the date on which the Adjudicating Authority appointed under the said Act commences discharging the functions of the Adjudicating Authority under the said Act, in respect of cases in which references have been received by it;
(ii) notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in clause (i), the Adjudicating Authority appointed under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003) shall pass order under subsection (3) of section 26 of the said Act in respect of case in which the said order is required to be passed before the expiry of two months from the end of the month in which the Adjudicating Authority appointed under the said Act commences discharging the functions of the Adjudicating Authority under the said Act;
(iii) the Appellate Tribunal referred to in section 25 of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003) shall discharge the functions of the Appellate Tribunal under the said Act, for the period beginning on 1st day of November, 2016 and ending on the date preceding the date on which the Appellate Tribunal established under the said Act commences discharging the functions of the Appellate Tribunal under the said Act, in respect of cases in which appeals have been filed before it.
This Notification shall come into effect from the date of its publication.
[Notification No.77/2018/F.No.370149/194/2017-TPL]
PRAVIN RAWAL, Director (Tax Policy & Legislation)

MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Revenue)
ORDER
New Delhi, the 31st October, 2018
S.O. 5602(E).—WHEREAS, section 71 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (45 of 1988) (hereinafter referred to as the Benami Act) states that the Central Government may, by notification, provide that until the Adjudicating Authorities are appointed and the Appellate Tribunal is established under the Benami Act, the Adjudicating Authority appointed under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003) (hereinafter referred to as the PML Act) and the Appellate Tribunal established under section 25 of the PML Act may discharge the functions of the Adjudicating Authority and Appellate Tribunal, respectively, under the Benami Act;
AND, whereas, the Central Government, in exercise of the powers conferred under section 71 of the Benami Act has appointed the Adjudicating Authority and established the Appellate Tribunal under the provisions of the PML Act vide notification number S.O. 3288 (E), dated 25th October, 2016 with effect from 1st day of November, 2016;
AND, whereas, on appointment of the Adjudicating Authority and establishment of the Appellate Tribunal under the Benami Act, the Adjudicating Authority and the Appellate Tribunal notified under section 71 of the Benami Act shall cease to discharge the functions under the Benami Act, and whereas, there shall be a time gap between the appointment of the Adjudicating Authority and establishment of the Appellate Tribunal under the Benami Act and discharging the functions of the said Authority and the said Appellate Tribunal under the Benami Act;
AND, whereas, a difficulty has arisen in respect of the reference and appeal filed under the Benami Act which are pending before the Adjudicating Authority and the Appellate Tribunal respectively and in respect of receiving references from the Initiating Officer by the Adjudicating Authority and filing of appeal against the order of the Adjudicating Authority under the Benami Act, there is a need to remove the difficulty arising from the time gap between the appointment of the Adjudicating Authority and establishment of the Appellate Tribunal under the Benami Act and discharging the functions of the said Authority and the said Appellate Tribunal under the Benami Act;
AND, whereas, sub-section (7) of section 26 of the Benami Act provides that the Adjudicating Authority shall not pass order after the expiry of one year from the end of the month in which the reference has been received by it from the Initiating Officer and whereas, on the date on which the Adjudicating Authority under the Benami Act shall discharge the functions under the Benami Act, there may be references pending before the Adjudicating Authority notified under section 71 of Benami Act in which order under sub-section (3) of section 26 may be required to be passed in a short period of time;
AND, whereas, a difficulty has arisen in view of the fact that the Adjudicating Authority appointed under the Benami Act may not have sufficient time for passing an order in respect of said references and there is a need to remove the difficulty arising from the availability of limited time for passing such order under the Benami Act;
NOW, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 70 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (45 of 1988) the Central Government hereby makes the following Order to remove the aforesaid difficulties, namely:-
1. Short title and commencement.—(1) This Order may be called the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions (Removal of Difficulties) Second Order, 2018.
(2) It shall come into force on the date of its publication in the Official Gazette.
2. In section 71 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, after the words “under this Act” occurring at the end, the words “for such period and in respect of such cases or class of cases as may be specified in the said notification” shall be inserted.
[F. No. 370149/194/2017-TPL]
PRAVIN RAWAL, Director (Tax Policy & Legislation)

MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Revenue)
(CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES)
NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 25th October, 2016.

S.O. 3288(E).—In exercise of powers conferred under section 71 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (45 of 1988), the Central Government hereby notifies that, with effect from the 1st day of November, 2016, the Adjudicating Authority appointed under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003) and the Appellate Tribunal established under section 25 of that Act shall discharge the functions of the Adjudicating Authority and Appellate Tribunal, respectively, under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (45 of 1988) until the Adjudicating Authorities are appointed and the Appellate Tribunal is established under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (45 of 1988).
[Notification No. 97/2016/F. No. 149/144/2015-TPL (Part-II)]
PRAVIN RAWAL,
Director (Tax Policy & Legislation)


Thursday, 24 October 2019

Applicability of provisions of TDS in respect of Commission Paid by Indian Exporters to Non-Resident Agents


The role of an agent differs from case to case. The duties of the agent are usually compiled in the agency agreement between Indian Exporter (Principle) and Agent abroad. The relationship of the parties to the agreement is that of Principle-Agent. The Principle pays export commission to the agent as per agreed terms based on the sales abroad. The Principle obviously claims the export commission as business expenditure.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre (P) Ltd. (2010) TS 140 SC held that Tax is to be deducted at source while making payment to the non-resident, only when the related income of the non-resident is taxable in India.


Applicability of Sections 5 and 9 of Income-tax Act, 1961  
Section 5(2) of the Act defines the scope of total income of a person who is a non-resident. It includes all income from whatever source derived which:
(a) is received or is deemed to be received in India in such year by or on behalf of such 
     person or
(b) accrues or arises or is deemed to accrue or arise to him in India during such year.

In the case of export commission, the commission is usually remitted to the agent out of India for the services rendered outside India, neither any income is received in India nor deemed to be received in India. Hence, export commission can be included in total income only if it can be covered under any of the possibilities of clause (b) of Section 5(2) of the Act.

Concept of Business Connection
The concept of “business connection” was dealt with in the landmark case of CIT v. R. D. Aggarwal & Co. & ANR. (1965) 56 ITR 20 (SC) where the Apex Court held that a business connection “involves a relation between a business carried on by a non-resident which yields profits or gains and some activity in the taxable territories which contributes directly or indirectly to the earning of those profits or gains. It predicates an element of continuity between the business of the non-resident and the activity in the taxable territories.”.

According to Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements, if the non-resident does not have Permanent Establishment in India then Business Income of such non-resident shall not be taxed in India
Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement is important in light of provisions of Section 90 of the Act. According to the sub-section (2) of section 90 of the Act:

“When the Central Government has entered in to an agreement with the Government of any country outside India or specified territory outside India, as the case may be, under sub section (1) for granting relief of tax, or as the case may be, avoidance of double taxation, then, in relation to the assessee to whom such agreement applies, the provisions of this Act shall apply to the extent they are more beneficial to the assessee.”

According to Article 7 on Business Income in the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements, the Business Connection of non-resident is taxable in India only if said non-resident has Permanent Establishment in India. If the non-resident has Permanent Establishment in India then the profits attributable to such Permanent Establishment shall be taxed in India. The relevant extract of the Article 7 on Business Income from UN Model Tax Conventions is:

“The profits of an enterprise of a Contracting State shall be taxable only in that state unless the enterprise carries on business in the other contacting state through a Permanent Establishment situated therein. If the enterprise carries on business as aforesaid, the profits of the enterprise may be taxed in the other state but only so much of them as is attributable to (a) that permanent establishment; (b) sales in that other state of goods or merchandise of the same or similar kind as those sold through that Permanent Establishment; or (c) other business activity carried on in that other state of the same or similar kind as those effected through that Permanent Establishment.”

CBDT’s Circular No. 7/2009, dated 22.10.2009 [F. No. 500/135/2007-FTD-I]
The Central Board of Direct Taxes had issued Circular No. 23 on 23.07.1969 regarding taxability of income accruing or arising through, or from, business connection in India to a non-resident, under section 9 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

2. It is noticed that interpretation of the Circular by some of the taxpayers to claim relief is not in accordance with the provisions of section 9 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 or the intention behind the issuance of the Circular.

3. Accordingly, the Central Board of Direct Taxes withdraws Circular No 23 dated 23.07. 1969 with immediate effect.

4. Even when the Circular was in force, the Income-tax Department has argued in appeals, references and petitions that-
(i)   the Circular does not actually apply to a particular case, or
(ii)  that the Circular can not be interpreted to allow relief to the taxpayer which is not in accordance with the provisions of section 9 of the Income-tax Act or with the intention behind the issue of the Circular.

     It is clarified that {the withdrawal of the Circular will in no way prejudice the aforesaid arguments which the Income-tax Department has taken, or may take, in any appeal, reference or petition.

5. The Central Board of Direct Taxes also withdraws Circulars No. 163 dated 29th May, 1975 and No. 786 dated 7th February, 2000 which provided clarification in respect of certain provisions of Circular No 23 dated 23rd July, 1969.

CBDT’s Circular No. 786 dated 07.02.2000
CBDT through this circular clarified the deduction of tax under Section 195 and the taxability of export commission payable to non-resident agents rendering services abroad. The relevant extract of the said circular is:
“It had been clarified then that where the nonresident agent operates outside the country no part of his income arises in India. Further, since the payment is usually remitted directly abroad it cannot be held to have been received by or on behalf of the agent in India. Such payments were therefore, held to be not taxable in India. The relevant Sections, namely Section 5(2) and Section 9 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 not having undergone any change in this regard, the clarification in Circular No. 23 still prevails. No tax is therefore deductible under Section 195 and consequently the expenditure on export commission and other related charges payable to a non-resident for services rendered outside India becomes allowable expenditure.”

CBDT’s Circular No. 23 dated 23.07.1969: Foreign agents of Indian exporters
CBDT through this circular explained the taxability of export commission. The relevant extract from the said circular is:
“A foreign agent of Indian exporter operates in his own country and no part of his income arises in India. His commission is usually remitted directly to him and is, therefore, not received by him or on his behalf in India. Such an agent is not liable to income-tax in India on the commission.”


No tax to be withheld on commission paid to non-resident agent even in cases where orders ultimately secured from Indian company
The assessee was engaged in the business of manufacture of precision measuring, checking instruments and gauges used to control quality of engineering production. He had paid commission to an agent based in Italy for securing purchase orders from an Indian subsidiary of an Italian company. He had appointed the agent to follow-up with the Italian company due to distance and language barriers. He had not withheld tax on such payment of commission. The Assessing  Officer disallowed the commission expense during regular assessment proceedings under section 40(a)(i) of the Act as no tax had been withheld. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A), who upheld the Assessing Officer’s order. The assessee then filed an appeal before the Tribunal.

The Revenue contended that since the orders were procured from an Indian entity, services were provided in India, and the situs of the foreign agent was in India. It placed reliance on the ruling pronounced by Delhi High Court in the case of Havells India Limited 352 ITR 376 (Del). It also contended that the CBDT Circular No. 23 of 1969 having been withdrawn, was not applicable.

The Tribunal observed that it was an undisputed fact that services rendered were neither technical nor managerial in nature. It also observed that the Revenue was unable to show that the foreign agent had a PE in India. It held that as the foreign agent was involved in liaison/ following up with the Italian company, the services were rendered outside India. The Tribunal further distinguished the Delhi High Court decision in CIT v. Havells India Limited (2013) 352 ITR 376 (Del) on facts, as in that case, the assessee had paid fees for testing and certification services. The Tribunal discussed the CBDT Circular No. 786 dated 07.02.2000 which clarified the taxability of export commission payable to non-resident agent for rendering services abroad, and held that no tax needed to be withheld under section 195 on such export commission. Referring to a judicial precedent relied upon by the assessee, viz. CIT v. Faizan Shoes (P) Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 155 (Mad); Welspring Universal v. JCIT  (2015) 56 taxmann.com 174 (ITAT Delhi)] , the Tribunal held that payment of commission to a foreign agent was not liable to tax in India. In this case, the Madras HC had also held that services rendered by an agent were not covered under the category of Fees for Technical Services (FTS). It further placed reliance on the Apex Court’s ruling in the case of GE India Technology Centre v. CIT (2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC), to hold that tax was required to be withheld only if such sum was chargeable to tax under the Act. Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that the taxpayer was not required to withhold tax on commission paid to foreign agent, as the services were rendered outside India and hence disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Act would not sustain. - [TS-230-ITAT-2016 (ITAT Pune)]

No withholding taxes on commission paid to NR agents for services rendered abroad in absence of their Permanent establishment (PE) in India
Assessee firm made payments of commission to its foreign agents without deducting tax at source - Assessing Officer thus disallowed said payments under section 40(a)(i) - It was apparent from records that foreign agents had rendered services in their respective countries and had received commission - It was also undisputed that foreign agents did not have any PE in India and there was nothing brought on record to show that agreements between assessee and commission agents were entered in India - On facts, commission payments were not taxable in India and, thus, impugned disallowance deserved to be deleted. - (Related Assessment year : 2010-11) – [ITO v. Trident Exports (2014) 149 ITD  361 : 44 taxmann.com 297 (ITAT Chennai)]

AAR held that the words ‘accrue’ or ‘arise’ occurring in Section 5 have more or less a synonymous sense and income is said to accrue or arise when the right to receive it comes into existence. Though the agents rendered services abroad and have solicited orders, but the right to receive the commission arises in India when the order is executed in India. - [SKF Boilers and Driers (P) Ltd. (2012) TS 203 AAR]

Indian taxpayer is not liable to deduct tax under Section 195 of the Act from commission and other related charges payable to non-resident who has rendered services outside India
The Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Eon Technology (P) Ltd. (2011) TS 661 ruled in favour of the assessee. In the said case, the non-resident was acting as a marketing agent and was providing marketing and sales support to Indian Exporter. It was held that the services are rendered outside India and non-resident agent does not have a Business Connection in India and hence, commission income is not taxable in India. (Related Assessment year : 2007-08) - [CIT v. Eon Technology (P) Ltd. (2011) TS 661- Date of Judgement : 08.11.2011 (Del)]

It was held that non-resident agency companies have not made available any technical or managerial service and hence commission paid to such companies is a business profit and not fees for technical services. – [ACIT v. Modern Insulator Ltd (2011) 10 ITR (Tri) 147 (ITAT Jaipur)]

It was held that with respect to payment of selling commission, brokerage and other related charges to non-resident agents in respect of sale of tea outside India, no income had accrued or arisen in India either under Section 5(2) or under Section 9 and therefore no tax was deductible under Section 195. – [JCIT v. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd. (2009) 116 ITD 328 (ITAT Guwahati)]

In Spahi Projects (P) Ltd., IN RE, where the AAR held that commission for services rendered in connection with arranging sales abroad (in South Africa) cannot be brought within the net of income-tax in India as there was no fixed place of business in India for the South African entity nor does the SA entity enter into any contracts in India. - [Spahi Projects (P) Ltd., IN RE (2009) 315 ITR 374 : 225 CTR 133 : 183 TAXMAN 92 : 26 DTR 303 (AAR)]

It was held that the foreign agent’s right to receive the commission is acquired as and when services are rendered. Since services are rendered abroad, the right to receive the commission is consequentially acquired outside India. Accrual of Income is also outside India. Hence, the commission income of foreign agent paid by Indian exporter is not chargeable to tax in India.
- [DCIT v. Ardeshi and Cursetjee & Sons Ltd. (2008) 115 TTJ 916 : 7 DTR 51 (ITAT Mumbai)]

Commission and retainer fees received by non resident agent from Indian exporters is not taxable in India
In the case of Ind Telesoft (P) Ltd. (2004) 267 ITR 725, the Authority for Advance Rulings held that commission and retainer fees received by non resident agent from Indian exporters is not taxable in India. In the said case, assessee was engaged in the business of providing software solutions for telecom industry. It entered into agreement with three nonresidents from three different countries viz. France, Canada and USA, for securing business from outside India. The assessee agreed to pay retainer fees and commission to non-resident agents. Those non resident agents did not have any business connections in India. AAR held that, income of non-residents is not taxable in India in the absence of Business Connection in India.

The Madras ITAT in the case of Indopel Garments (P) Ltd. referred the case of CIT v. Toshoku Ltd. (1980) 125 ITR 525 (ITAT Madras) and held that no disallowance under section 40(a)(i) could be made for commission payment, without deducting tax, to foreign concern without acting as a selling agent of the assessee for canvassing orders outside India as income will be deemed to accrue or arise in India only if any part of the income is reasonably attributable to the operations carried out in India and if no operations are carried out in India, there would be no income deemed to accrue or arise in India and no tax was to be deducted under section 195 out of remittances made to foreign concern. The foreign agent does not have any Business Connection in India and hence his income is not deemed to accrue or arise in India. - [Indopel Garments (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (2003) 86 ITD 102 (ITAT Madras)]

It was held that no disallowance under section 40(a)(i) could be made for commission payment, without deducting tax, to foreign concern without acting as a selling agent of the assessee for canvassing orders outside India as income will be deemed to accrue or arise in India only if any part of the income is reasonably attributable to the operations carried out in India and if no operations are carried out in India, there would be no income deemed to accrue or arise in India and no tax was to be deducted under section 195 out of remittances made to foreign concern. – [CIT v. Indopel Garments (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (2001) 72 TTJ 702 (ITAT Chennai)

It was held that commission service by foreign agent does not impart any information concerning technical, industrial, commercial or scientific knowledge, experience or skill nor does he render any managerial, technical or consultancy service. Commission attributable to services rendered by assessee cannot be regarded as royalty or fees for technical services and hence the same was not taxable under Section 9(1)(vi) or (vii). – [CEAT International S. A. (1999) 237 ITR 859 (Bom)]

When a non-resident, with no operation of business in India, rendered services outside India to an Indian concern, then provisions of Section 9 are  not attracted
It was held that the commission amounts which were earned by the non-resident assessees for services rendered outside India cannot be deemed income accrued or arisen in India. The term ‘Business Connection’ in the context of its applicability to commission income of foreign agents is discussed in this case. - [CIT v Toshoku Ltd (1980) 125 ITR 525 SC)