Exchange Rate for imported goods is Rs 74.03 Per Pound Sterling and Rs 51.22 Per Yen-Exchange Rate for export is Rs 72.45 Per Pound Sterling and Rs 49.94 Per Yen-Customs Non-Tariff Notification No.128      Sensex slips further and closes at 8773   100 per cent EOUs allowed to export non-basmati rice-DGFT Notification No.59      Customs duty of 5 per cent imposed on import of Pig Iron, spiegeleisen, semi-finished products, flat products & long products    Import of Crude Soyabean Oil subjected to 20 per cent customs duty- no change in import duty on refined soyabean oil-Customs Tariff Notification No.122    Time-limit for filing refund of service tax extended to 6 months-Service Tax Notification No.32   Rahul Bajaj asks Industry to prepare for the worst     Tariff Value for import of Brass Scrap is 3525 and for poppy seeds 5206-Customs Non-Tariff Notification No. 127     CBEC clarifies the entire amount of duty paid by the manufacturer, as shown in the invoice would be available as credit irrespective of the fact that subsequent to clearance of the goods, the price is reduced by way of discount or otherwise-Central Excise Circular No.877      Mandavariya (Kishangarh), District Ajmer notified for Unloading of imported goods and loading of export goods-Customs Non-Tariff Notification No.117    SC Ruling-the entitlement of benefit in terms of Section 32AB, Section 80HH and Section 80I of the Income Tax Act- conversion of Jumbo rolls of photographic films into small flats and rolls in the desired sizes amounted to manufacture/production-AIT-2008-413-SC   SC Ruling-Whether any "gift" arose in terms of Section 2(xii) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 on the allotment of rights issue by the appellant company to its shareholders vide Board's Resolution- Whether there was any element of "gift" as defined under Section 2(xii) in the appellant issuing Bonus shares in the ratio of 1:23-AIT-2008-412-SC    DEPB benefit allowed on export of cement and steel-DGFT PN 108   exports of cement in all types and forms and primary steel products eligible for export incentives under Focus Market Scheme-DGFT Notification No.58     Import of Marble Tiles-DGFT Notification No.57    Clarification on setting up Duty Free Shops approved by FIPB-Customs Circular No.19       HC Ruling-Income Tax-"reserves" arising out of the acquisition of the business of Tata Cellular Limited could never have the character of "income" in the hands of the petitioners-pre-requisite condition contained in proviso to section 147 to enable the re-assessment to be opened after period of 4 years have elapsed have not been met-AIT-2008-410-HC    HC Ruling-Central Excise- valuation of the goods for the purpose of excise duty and whether excise duty was chargeable under Section 4 or Section 4A of the Central Excise Act 1944-while construing rule 3, who are excluded are only the institutional or industrial consumers as explained in Rule 2A and the industrial or institutional consumers in terms of the proviso to rule 2(p) for the purpose of chapter-II are the same-If the person who purchase the prepacked commodity not directly from the manufacturer or packers, they are consumers and the declaration will be of no effect-AIT-2008-408-HC   Government considering imposition of import duty on steel      Bad News for Consulting Engineers- whether turnkey contract can be vivisected?- The conclusion in Daelim case on the point, prima facie, being not in accordance with law, matter goes to Larger Bench-AIT-2008-405-CESTAT  Larger Bench of CESTAT rules Credit is admissible on an input service relating to the business-AIT-2008-407-CESTAT   credit of the service tax paid on the outdoor catering (canteen) service is admissible as input service under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004-AIT-2008-406-CESTAT   The payment for use of "services for MTNL/other companies via the interconnect/port/access/toll by the assessee would not fall within the purview of payments as provided for under section 194J of the Act, so as to be eligible for tax deduction at source-The interconnect charges/port access charges cannot be regarded as fees for technical services-AIT-2008-404-HC   Computation of Value under Section 14 for Levy of Export Duty - Customs Circular No. 18          Advance Ruling- Whether the service fee paid by the applicant to Intertek Testing Management Limited UK under Global Management Service Agreement is taxable as "Royalties & Fee for Technical Services" as per the provisions of Article 13 of DTAA between India & UK? Whether the applicant is required to deduct tax at source on the service fee paid to Intertek Testing Management Limited, UK, at the rate of 10% plus applicable surcharge and cess as per the provisions of section 115A(1)(b)(BB) of the Income-tax Act-AIT-2008-401-AAR   Larger Bench of SC Ruling-whether the revenue can be precluded from filing an appeal even though in respect of some other years involving identical dispute no appeal is filed -AIT-2008-403-SC     SC Ruling-whether transfer of Banking Undertaking gave rise to taxable capital gains under Section 45 of the 1961 Act-it was not possible to compute capital gains and, therefore, the said amount of Rs. 10.20 cr. was not taxable under Section 45 of Income Tax Act-AIT-2008-400-SC   Export duty of 8 per cent notified in place of earlier rate of Rs. 200 per tonne on export of iron ore fines-Customs Tariff Notification No.121    Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination And Collection of Duty) Second Amendment Rules, 2008-Central Excise Non-Tariff Notification No.45   SC rules Ethylene and propylene manufactured by the assessee and used in its factory in the further manufacture of the same goods would be entitled to the benefit of exemption contained in notification no.217/86-AIT-2008-398-SC  New DEPB Rates on export of all products notified–DGFT PN 102  service tax paid under Section 66A is available as 'input credit' under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 provided the said services are used as input services by the manufacturer or producer of final products or a provider of output taxable service-Service Tax Trade Notice No.43/2008  Anti-dumping duty imposed on import of cable ties from China & Taiwan-Customs Tariff Notification No.118   Definitive Anti-dumping duty imposed on import of Phenol from Singapore, South Africa & European Union-Customs Tariff Notification No.114  High-tech products entitled to benefits under High-Tech Products Export Promotion Scheme –DGFT PN 101   
Services  |  Subscribe  |  Contact Us  |   Feedback   |  E-mail  |  News |  Home
JUDGMENTS
CENTRAL EXCISE
CUSTOMS
SERVICE TAX
INCOME TAX
VAT
FINANCE ACTS
FINANCE BILLS
EOU STPI
SEZ
DGFT
RBI
NTT
RESOURCES


    
Email | Print

Income accrues to Agent when payment due to Principal realized

AIT News Network

MUMBAI. Mr Vimal Gandhi President of ITAT as Third Member has ruled that the  income accrued to the assessee when payment due to its principal was realized by the assessee and he was in a position to retain his commission.

On account of the difference between the Members of ITAT, the following questions were  referred to President:

            “1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the commission income under the agreement dated 31.5.1994 accrued to the assessee when it was received by it from its clients as held by the Judicial Member OR accrued at the time of acceptances of the solicited advertisement by the principal though could be assessed in the year in which such advertisement was telecast as held by the Accountant Member?

            2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the assessee is entitled to deduction of advertisement expenses amounting to Rs.9,03,02,000 /- for A.Y. 1998-99 and 9,38,05,000 A.Y. 1999-2000 u /s. 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?”    

T H E  F A C T S : The assessee was a non-resident company engaged in the business of (i) Procuring and collecting advertisement revenue on behalf of Satellite Television Asian Region Advertising Sales (‘STAR”), Hong Kong; and (iii) Acting as a licensee in India in respect of STAR MOVIES pay channel.  The assessee entered into an agreement on 31.5.1994 with a non-resident with the name Star Advertising Sales B.V. of Netherlands, which had exclusive rights in India from Satellite Television Asian Region Ltd. of Hong Kong for television advertising on various television channels.  The assessee was appointed as one of the agents in India to market television advertising for the channels.  This arrangement had the approval of the RBI as per their approval letter dated 22.7.1994.

As per Clauses of Agreement; the Agent was entitled to retain fifteen percent of the net invoiced amount paid by the clients as commission                                   

The assessee in the years under consideration as also in the earlier years followed mercantile system of accounting.  In the past, assessee took accrual of commission income on the dates when the advertisements were telecast by the principal and accordingly commission income was offered for taxation.  The assessee subsequently realized that income did not accrue to it on the date of telecast of advertisements booked, but accrued when payment was received from clients.  Accordingly, in the years under consideration, the assessee claimed that income accrued from commission from its principal on the date when the money was realized by it from the clients.  After giving appropriate notes, the assessee returned income on above basis i.e. taking accrual of income when realized from the clients and to that extent method of computation of income was changed. 

 When called upon to justify above change in policy, the assessee explained that under clause 8 of agreement with its principal commission @15% of net invoice amount accrued to the assessee when amount was paid by clients.  Unless the amount was paid there was no accrual of income.

The AO held that income accrued to the assessee on the dates when advertisements booked were telecast.  This resulted in addition of Rs.8,10,11,000, Rs.8,30,00,449 and Rs.35,48,804 for A.Ys 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 respectively.  

T H E  R U L I N G:

The main controversy involved here is at what point of time, income accrued to the assessee.  According to the assessee, commission income under the agreement could accrue to the assessee as per clause 8 of the agreement which provided that the agent (assessee) shall be entitled to retain 15% of net invoice amount paid by clients as commission.  So the case of the assessee as accepted by the learned Judicial Member in the proposed order is that income cannot accrue under the agreement unless assessee is in a position to exercise his right to retain 15% of net invoice amount paid by assessee’s principal clients.  The stand of the revenue, as supported by proposed order of learned A.M. is that income would accrue to the assessee as soon as advertisements are solicited by the assessee for principal is to be read as a whole to determine its legal implication.

For determining accrual of income, the agreement and in particular, “clauses containing terms of payment are required to be construed.”  Applying above principle here in the present case, it is seen as per clause 8, the assessee is entitled to i.e. he gets a right to retain “15% of net invoice amount paid by the clients as commission”.  Thus commission is required to be worked and right of assessee to receive commission is dependent on payment of charges by clients of assessee’s principal.  So it is clearly provided that right to receive / retain income would accrue after the amount is paid by assessee’s client.  It cannot accrue prior to or before payment is made by the assessee’s client.  The payment or realization of amount from client for the advertisement aired in TV Channel is a condition precedent for accrual of income in this case.  Though clause 8 of the agreement is in clear terms and is sufficient to indicate as to when income would accrue to the assessee, other terms of the agreement also support the same inference. 

It is difficult to hold that assessee has no obligation to realize amounts from clients and that role of the assessee is over, as soon as assessee solicits TV advertisements from the customers for telecast in Star TV channel. 

Realization of amount and remittance is very much part of the job required to be performed by the assessee and having regard to the wording of the agreement assessee becomes entitled or acquires right to retain 15% of amount realized on account of principal.  No right can be said to have accrued to the assessee before the amount is actually realized and assessee is in a position to remit the same to its foreign principal.

 It is nowhere provided that assessee would be entitled to receive its commission even if advertisements solicited by the assessee are not telecast or amount is not realized by the assessee’s principal.  There is no clause in the agreement which would indicate that commission would accrue to the assessee as soon as advertisements are solicited by the assessee. In the agreement there are further steps to be taken and advertisements solicited are required to be sent for approval by the principal.  The principal under the agreement is not only to approve the advertisement solicited by the assessee but also to raise invoices the advertisement solicited by assessee but also to raise invoices within 30 days from the date on which advertisement is so telecast.  The principal has also to issue instructions to the client to make payment thereof to its agent (assessee).  The assessee is further obliged o collect all the sums due to its principal.  It is not possible to ignore all the above mentioned clauses of the agreement and hold that assessee acquires right to receive income as soon as advertisements are solicited by the assessee and that other situations provided in the agreement relate only to “future uncertainties, difficulties and delays” and these would have no effect on the accrual of income.  Other clauses cannot be understood to be relating to relinquishment of income after its accrual.

It has rightly been held by the learned Judicial Member that income accrued to the assessee when payment due to its principal was realized by the assessee and he was in a position to retain his commission.    

As far as second question relating to disallowance of expenses is claimed, I find that there is no dispute about the genuineness of the expenditure incurred by the assessee.  There can further be no dispute that expenditure incurred by the assessee on advertisement made had direct nexus with earning of income by the assessee.  It is possible that expenditure on advertisement might have also benefited the principal of the assessee but on above ground, the expenditure incurred by the assessee could not be disallowed.  The assessee clearly incurred expenses wholly and exclusively for purposes of its business and, therefore, was entitled to deduction of expenditure claimed in computing its income

(  Click here for full text of ruling AIT-2006-199-ITAT )

 

  Copyright © 2006 allindiantaxes.com | All rights reserved
website designing India & CMS development: Softlogics & Developments