Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-7, Bengaluru & Anr. v. M/s. Tecnotree Convergence Ltd.

1. FACTS OF THE CASE

Revenue challenged the ITAT common order dated 3 July 2019. The caption identifies ITA 1519/Bang/2017 for AY 2010-11; paragraph 1 also describes Revenue appeals 1447–1448 and assessee appeals 1519–1520/Bang/2017 for AYs 2010-11 and 2011-12. The proposed questions concerned commission disallowance under section 40(a)(ia), section 195 and the nature of services, plus section 10A(3) export turnover where proceeds allegedly were not deposited in time.

Source: Caption and paragraphs 1–2; PDF pp.1–3

2. DISCUSSION BY THE COURT

The assessee relied on its own ITA 834/2018, decided 7 June 2021, for the two commission questions and Wipro Ltd. v. DCIT, 382 ITR 179, for the export-turnover question. Revenue could not distinguish those decisions from the present facts. The Court applied the norm that like cases should be treated alike.

Source: Paragraphs 3–4; PDF pp.3–4

3. JUDICIAL DECISION

The Court dismissed Revenue’s appeal as lacking merit on that basis.

Source: Paragraph 4 and conclusion; PDF p.4

4. OUTCOME

The Tribunal’s relief challenged in this appeal remained intact. This short judgment does not independently set out payment amounts, agent agreements, export-realisation dates or an RBI extension granted to this taxpayer.

Source: Paragraphs 1–4; PDF pp.2–4

5. Expert Comments

AKHB editorial analysis, distinct from the Court’s findings.

Precedent application supplies the operative reasoning

The Court rejected Revenue’s attempt to reopen questions already covered by the identified decisions because no factual distinction was shown. In another dispute, the useful comparison is with the actual earlier decisions and the relevant payment or realisation facts; this order alone does not establish that every overseas commission escapes withholding.

Source: PDF p.3 · PDF p.4

Do not convert allegations into fresh factual findings

The questions allege missing service details and late deposit of export proceeds. The Bench does not separately find where each service was rendered or specify an RBI extension. The dismissal preserves the Tribunal’s relief through precedent, but cannot supply those absent evidentiary details for another taxpayer.

Source: PDF p.2 · PDF p.3 · PDF p.4

Separate this appeal from the common Tribunal background

The caption links this High Court appeal to ITA 1519/Bang/2017 and AY 2010-11, although the narrative recites a common order for two years and four Tribunal appeals. Retaining that distinction prevents the common background from being mistaken for separate High Court dispositions. The source’s printed section 40(a)(ia) is retained rather than silently changed to a different withholding-disallowance provision.

Source: PDF p.1 · PDF p.2 · PDF p.3