{"id":18301,"date":"2018-04-19T15:49:35","date_gmt":"2018-04-19T10:19:35","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=18301"},"modified":"2018-04-19T15:49:35","modified_gmt":"2018-04-19T10:19:35","slug":"acit-vs-manufax-india-s-b-itat-agra-s-91i-40ai-entire-law-on-whether-commission-paid-by-an-indian-entity-to-foreign-agents-can-be-said-to-accrue-in-india-and-whether-the-assessee-is-obliged","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/acit-vs-manufax-india-s-b-itat-agra-s-91i-40ai-entire-law-on-whether-commission-paid-by-an-indian-entity-to-foreign-agents-can-be-said-to-accrue-in-india-and-whether-the-assessee-is-obliged\/","title":{"rendered":"ACIT vs. Manufax (India) S.B. (ITAT Agra)"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Tribunal had to consider the following grounds in the Department\u2019s appeal for assessment year 2010-11. <\/p>\n

\u201c1. That the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Agra has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.36,30,862\/- made u\/s40(a)(i) on account of non-deduction of tax on payments of commission to non-resident\/foreign commission agents ignoring the facts that commission paid foreign commission agents is deemed to accrue or arise in India, which required deduction of tax as per section 195 of the I.T.Act. <\/p>\n

2. That the Ld. CIT(A)-1 ,Agra has erred in law and facts in deleting the addition of Rs.36,30,862\/- by ignoring the law as laid down as per section 9(1)(i) which clearly comes in the nature of payment by the assessee to nonresidents.\u201d <\/p>\n

The facts are that the assessee, who is engaged in trading, manufacturing and export of shoes, had filed its return of income for the year under consideration at income of Rs. 1,64,73,630\/-. During the assessment proceedings, the AO had made an addition of Rs 70,54,210\/- in respect of commission paid by the assessee to foreign agents. While making the said additions, the AO was of the view that the CBDT has issued Circular No.7 dated 22.10.2009, by which, earlier Circulars No.23 dated 23 July 1969, Circular No.163 dated 29th May 1975 and Circular No. 786 dated 7th February 2000, which were based on Circular No.23, have been withdrawn. According to the AO Circular No.23 was issued in the context of Section 9 of the Income Tax Act, which deems certain income to accrue or arise in India for non-residents. Thus, according to the AO, in view of this, assessee should have deducted tax at source. The AO further held that post withdrawal of Circular No.786, the income arising to foreign agents on account of export commission falls u\/s 5(2) (b) of the Income-tax Act, as the income had accrued in India when the right to receive the income became vested. The AO also held that the position has entirely changed after the withdrawal of Circular No. 786 by the CBDT and other relevant Circulars by the CBDT. <\/p>\n

To further strengthen his view, the AO referred to a ruling by the Authority for Advance Rulings in the case of \u2018S.K.F Boilers & Driers (P) Limited\u2019, in which case, it was held that withholding of tax is mandatory u\/s 195 of the I.T Act on export commission paid to a non resident agent, since commission is deemed to accrue or arise in India. The AO thus held that the provisions of section 195 are applicable in respect of payments of Commission w.e.f 12.10.2009 to 31.03.2010, on which basis, amount of Rs.70,54,210\/- was disallowed u\/s 40(a)(i) of the I.T. Act and added to the income of the assessee. <\/p>\n

HELD by the Tribunal dismissing the appeal: <\/p>\n

8. The matter it is seen, is exactly similar to the one involved in \u2018ACIT, Circle- 1, Agra vs. M\/s Virola International\u2019, Agra, ITA No.112\/Agr\/2017, for A.Y 2012- 13, ordered dated 25.01.2018 and \u2018ACIT Circle-1,Agra vs. M\/s Nuova Shoes\u2019, Agra, ITA No.435\/Agr\/2015 for A.Y. 2010-11, order dated 28.09.2017, both cases decided by this Bench. In \u2018Virola International\u2019 (supra), following \u2018Nuova Shoes\u2019, it has been held as follows: \u201c9. Having heard the parties, with reference to the material placed on record, we find the matter at hand to be squarely covered by our decision dated 28.09.2017, in a similar case of \u2018M\/s Nuova Shoes, Agra\u2019, wherein a similar appeal of the department was dismissed in ITA No. 435\/Agr\/2015, for AY 2010-11. Therein, (M\/s Nuova Shoes order Para 16 to 41) we have observed as under: <\/p>\n

“<\/em>16. It remains undisputed that in respect of payment made to<\/em> non resident agents, no TDS has been deducted as these agents<\/em> have procured export orders for the assessee firm and assisted<\/em> in the timely realization of the payments; that the commission is<\/em> declared in the GR issued by the assessee for the purpose of<\/em> export of goods; that the same is within the limits prescribed by<\/em> Reserve Bank of <\/em>India<\/em> and all remittances have been made<\/em> through proper banking channels; that the non-resident agent<\/em> has carried out all his activities outside <\/em>India<\/em>, did not render<\/em> any service in <\/em>India<\/em> and did not have Permanent Establishment<\/em> (PE) in <\/em>India<\/em>; that residing in the foreign countries with whom<\/em> India<\/em> has entered into a DTAA and under the Article 7 of the<\/em> said DTAA, the income received is being taxed in their hands in<\/em> their country; that the assessee has remitted payments to them<\/em> outside <\/em>India<\/em> through proper banking channels; that these<\/em> agents have carried out business activity of procurement of<\/em> export orders and timely realization of payments for the<\/em> assessee outside <\/em>India<\/em>; that as the income received by these<\/em> agents is business income, the same cannot be taxed under the<\/em> Income-tax Act 1961 in the absence of business connection and<\/em> permanent establishment in <\/em>India<\/em>; that these non resident<\/em> commission agents offer to tax the income received on account<\/em> of the transactions with the assessee as their business income in<\/em> their country of residence; and that the role and responsibilities<\/em> of these agents are as under <\/em>–<\/em><\/p>\n

(i) to procure orders from buyers<\/em><\/p>\n

(ii) to negotiate price and other terms and intimate the same to the<\/em> assessee<\/em><\/p>\n

(iii) to re-negotiate the terms\/price if necessary, based on the<\/em> instructions of the assessee<\/em><\/p>\n

(iv) follow up in getting purchase orders from customers and<\/em> forward the same to the assessee<\/em><\/p>\n

(v) follow up regarding LC opening, shipment and payment .<\/em><\/p>\n

17. Against the aforesaid services rendered, these agents<\/em> raise a debit note \/ invoice for commission at the agreed rate<\/em> and the amount is remitted through proper banking channels to<\/em> their bank account in their country of residence.<\/em><\/p>\n

18. The AO has invoked the provisions of section 5(2) and<\/em> Section 9(1)(i) of the Act, however he has not dwelt beyond<\/em> merely mentioning these circular without bringing anything on<\/em> record about business connection or permanent establishment<\/em> of such agents in <\/em>India<\/em>. The AO in his order has also not<\/em> disputed the fact that the foreign agents are located outside<\/em> India<\/em> and have no permanent establishment in <\/em>India<\/em>. Therefore<\/em> it is not a case where the non-resident agents are carrying on<\/em> any business activity in <\/em>India<\/em>. Rather, it is the appellant who<\/em> has engaged the services of foreign agents outside <\/em>India<\/em> on<\/em> pure commercial and business terms for its sales outside <\/em>India<\/em> and also to pursue the payments to be made by the purchasers<\/em> as located abroad.<\/em><\/p>\n

19. As per section 9(1) of the Act <\/em>–<\/em> 24 The following incomes shall be deemed to accrue or arise in<\/em> India<\/em>:<\/em>—<\/em><\/p>\n

(i) all income accruing or arising, whether directly or<\/em> indirectly, through or from any business connection in <\/em>India<\/em>, or<\/em> through or from any property in <\/em>India<\/em>, or through or from any<\/em> asset or source of income in <\/em>India<\/em>, or through the transfer of a<\/em> capital asset situate in <\/em>India<\/em>.<\/em><\/p>\n

Explanation 1. For the purposes of this clause <\/em>–<\/em><\/p>\n

(a) in the case of a business of which all the operations are not<\/em> carried out in <\/em>India<\/em>, the income of the business deemed under<\/em> this clause to accrue or arise in <\/em>India<\/em> shall be only such part of<\/em> the income as is reasonably attributable to the operations<\/em> carried out in <\/em>India<\/em>;<\/em><\/p>\n

(b) in the case of a non-resident, no income shall be deemed to<\/em> accrue or arise in <\/em>India<\/em> to him through or from operations<\/em> which are confined to the purchase of goods in <\/em>India<\/em> for the<\/em> purpose of export;<\/em><\/p>\n

(c) in the case of a non-resident, being a person engaged in the<\/em> business of running a news agency or of publishing<\/em> newspapers, magazines or journals, no income shall be deemed<\/em> to accrue or arise in <\/em>India<\/em> to him through or from activities<\/em> which are confined to the collection of news and views in <\/em>India<\/em> for transmission out of <\/em>India<\/em>,<\/em><\/p>\n

(d) in the case of a non-resident, being<\/em>—<\/em><\/p>\n

(1) an individual who is not a citizen of <\/em>India<\/em>; or<\/em><\/p>\n

(2) a firm which does not have any partner who is a citizen of <\/em>India<\/em> or who is resident in <\/em>India<\/em>; or<\/em><\/p>\n

(3) a company which does not have any shareholder who is a<\/em> citizen of <\/em>India<\/em> or who is resident in <\/em>India<\/em>, no income shall be<\/em> deemed to accrue or arise in <\/em>India<\/em> to such individual, firm or<\/em> company through or from operations which are confined to the<\/em> shooting of any cinematograph film in <\/em>India<\/em>,<\/em><\/p>\n

Explanation 2. <\/em>— <\/em>For the removal of doubts, it is hereby<\/em> declared that "business connection" shall include any business<\/em> activity carried out through a person who, acting on behalf of<\/em> the non-resident,-<\/em><\/p>\n

(a) has and habitually exercises in <\/em>India<\/em>, an authority to conclude<\/em> contracts on behalf of the non-resident, unless his activities are<\/em> limited to the purchase of goods or merchandise for the nonresident;<\/em> or<\/em><\/p>\n

(c) has no such authority, but habitually maintains in <\/em>India<\/em> a stock<\/em> of goods or merchandise from which he regularly delivers<\/em> goods or merchandise on behalf of the non-resident; or<\/em><\/p>\n

(d) habitually secures orders in <\/em>India<\/em>, mainly or wholly for the nonresident<\/em> or for that non-resident and other non-residents<\/em> controlling, controlled by, or subject to the same common<\/em> control, as that non-resident:<\/em><\/p>\n

Provided <\/em><\/strong>that such business connection shall not include any<\/em> business activity carried out through a broker, general<\/em> commission agent or any other agent having an independent<\/em> status, if such broker, general commission agent or any other<\/em> agent having an independent status is acting in the ordinary<\/em> course of his business :<\/em><\/p>\n

Provided further <\/em><\/strong>that where such broker, general commission<\/em> agent or any other agent works mainly or wholly on behalf of a<\/em> non-resident (hereafter in this proviso referred to as the<\/em> principal non-resident) or on behalf of such non-resident and<\/em> other non-residents which are controlled by the principal nonresident<\/em> or have a controlling interest in the principal nonresident<\/em> or are subject to the same common control as the<\/em> principal non-resident, he shall not be deemed to be a broker,<\/em> general commission agent or an agent of an independent status.<\/em><\/p>\n

20. In <\/em>“<\/em>CIT vs. EON Technology (P) Ltd.<\/em>” <\/em>(supra), while<\/em> dealing with payment of commission by the said assessee<\/em> company to its parent company i.e ETUK of <\/em>UK<\/em> which was<\/em> located outside <\/em>India<\/em>, Hon<\/em>’<\/em>ble <\/em>Delhi<\/em> High Court has held that<\/em> “<\/em>the commission payment to its British parent\/holding company<\/em> ETUK could not said to have been accrued to ETUK in <\/em>India<\/em> and therefore, the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at<\/em> source from payment of commission to ETUK<\/em>. <\/em><\/strong>The head note of<\/em> the order is reproduced hereunder:<\/em><\/p>\n

"Section 9 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Income – Deemed to<\/em> accrue or arise in <\/em>India<\/em> Assessment year 2007-08 – Assessee company<\/em> was engaged in business of development and export of<\/em> software – During relevant assessment year, it had paid<\/em> commission to its British parent\/holding company ETUK on<\/em> sales and amounts realized on export contracts procured by<\/em> ETUK for assessee – Assessing Officer held that commission<\/em> income earned by ETUK had accrued in <\/em>India<\/em> or was deemed<\/em> to accrue in <\/em>India<\/em> and, therefore, assessee was liable to deduct<\/em> tax at source there from and as there was failure, said<\/em> expenditure should be disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) –<\/em><\/p>\n

Whether when ETUK was not rendering any service or<\/em> performing any activity in <\/em>India<\/em> itself, commission income<\/em> could be said to have accrued, arisen to or received by ETUK<\/em> in <\/em>India<\/em> merely because it was recorded in books of assessee in<\/em> India or was paid by assessee situated in India – Held, no –<\/em><\/p>\n

Whether for applying section 9 Assessing Officer was required<\/em> to examine whether said commission income was accruing or<\/em> arising directly or indirectly from any business connection in<\/em> India<\/em> – Held, yes – Whether since facts found by Assessing<\/em> Officer did not make out a case of business connection as<\/em> stipulated in section 9(1)(0, commission income could not be<\/em> said to have accrued to ETUK in <\/em>India<\/em> and, therefore, assessee<\/em> was not liable to deduct tax at source from payment of<\/em> commission to ETUK – Held, yes [In favour of assessee]."<\/em><\/p>\n

21. In <\/em>“ <\/em>CIT vs. Toshoku Limited<\/em>”<\/em>, 125 ITR 525 (SC), the<\/em> Hon’ble Apex Court<\/em> while dealing with the twin aspects of the<\/em> situation in the case of the assessee before it, as to what was the<\/em> effect of the entries in the books of accounts of the Indian<\/em> assessee which had resulted in debit and credit entries on<\/em> account of commission and secondly, whether procurement of<\/em> export orders by the foreign companies for the Indian company<\/em> had resulted in a business connection, has opined as under :<\/em><\/p>\n

"It cannot be said that the making of the book entries in the<\/em> books of the statutory agent amounted to receipt by the<\/em> assessees who were non-residents as the amounts so credited in<\/em> their favour were not at their disposal or control. It is not<\/em> possible to hold that the non-resident assessees in this case<\/em> either received or can be deemed to have received the sums in<\/em> question when their accounts with the statutory agent were<\/em> credited, since a credit balance, without more, only represents<\/em> a debt and a mere book entry in the debtor’s own books does<\/em> not constitute payment which will secure discharge from the<\/em> debt. They cannot, therefore, be charged to tax on the basis of<\/em> receipt of income actual or constructive in the taxable<\/em> territories during the relevant accounting period. <\/em>X XX<\/em> 7 In the instant case, the non-resident assessees did not carry on<\/em> any business operations in the taxable territories. They acted as<\/em> selling agents outside <\/em>India<\/em>. The receipt in <\/em>India<\/em> of the sale<\/em> proceeds of tobacco remitted or caused to be remitted by the<\/em> purchasers from abroad does not amount to an operation<\/em> carried out by the assessees in <\/em>India<\/em> as contemplated by cl. (a)<\/em> of the Explanation to s. 9(1)(i) of the Act. The commission<\/em> amounts which were earned by the non-resident assessees for<\/em> services rendered outside <\/em>India<\/em> cannot, therefore, be deemed to<\/em> be incomes which have either accrued or arisen in <\/em>India<\/em>. The<\/em> High Court was, therefore, right in answering the question<\/em> against the department.<\/em>”<\/em><\/p>\n

22. In <\/em>“<\/em>DCIT vs. Divi<\/em>’<\/em>s Laboratories Ltd.<\/em>”<\/em>, 12 taxmann.com<\/em> 103 (Hyd), it was held that the CBDT by its Circular No. 7<\/em> dated 22.10.2009 had withdrawn its earlier Circular Nos. 23<\/em> dated 23.07.2009, 163 dated 29.05.1975 and 786 dated<\/em> 07.02.2000; that the earlier Circulars issued had clearly<\/em> demonstrated the illustration to explain that such commission<\/em> should be paid without deduction of tax; that thus, the main<\/em> thrust, in such situation, is whether the commissioner paid to<\/em> overseas agents, who are non-resident entities and who render<\/em> services only at such particular place, is assessable to tax; that<\/em> section 195 very clearly speaks that unless the income is liable<\/em> to be taxed in <\/em>India<\/em>, there is no obligation to deduct tax; that in<\/em> order to determine whether the income can be deemed to be<\/em> accrued or arisen in <\/em>India<\/em>, section 9 is the basis; that this<\/em> section does not provide scope for taxing such payment because<\/em> the basic criteria provided in the section is about genesis or<\/em> accruing or arising in <\/em>India<\/em>, by virtue of connection with the<\/em> property in <\/em>India<\/em>, control and management vested in <\/em>India<\/em>,<\/em> which were not satisfied in the instant cases; that under these<\/em> circumstances, withdrawal of earlier circulars issued by the<\/em> CBDT had no assistance to the department, in any way, in<\/em> disallowing such expenditure; that it appeared that an overseas<\/em> agent of Indian exporter operated in his own country and no<\/em> part of his income arises in <\/em>India<\/em> and his commission is usually<\/em> remitted directly to him by way of TT or posting of<\/em> cheques\/demand drafts in <\/em>India<\/em> and, therefore, the same is not<\/em> received by him or on his behalf in <\/em>India<\/em> and such an overseas<\/em> agent is not liable to income-tax in <\/em>India<\/em> on those commission payments; that section 195 has to be read along with the<\/em> charging sections 4, 5 and 9; that one should not read section<\/em> 195 to mean that the moment there is a remittance, the<\/em> obligation to deduct TDS automatically arises; that if such<\/em> contention was to be accepted, it would mean that on mere<\/em> payment in <\/em>India<\/em>, income would be said to arise or accrued in<\/em> India<\/em>; that if the contentions of the department were to be taken<\/em> as correct that any person, making payment to a non-resident,<\/em> was necessarily required to deduct tax, then the consequence<\/em> would be that the department would be entitled to appropriate<\/em> the monies deposited by the payer, even if the sum paid is not<\/em> chargeable to tax because there is no provision in the Act, by<\/em> which, a payer can obtain refund; that as per section 237 read<\/em> with section 199, it implies that only the recipient of the sum<\/em> i.e., payee would seek a refund; that in view of the above,<\/em> hence, no tax is deductible under section 195 on commission<\/em> payments and, consequently, the expenditure on export<\/em> commission payable to non-resident for services rendered<\/em> outside <\/em>India<\/em> becomes allowable expenditure and the same is<\/em> outside rigors of section 40( a)(ia); that in the instant case, the<\/em> ld. CIT(A) observed that the Assessing Officer had not been<\/em> able to establish that there was specific intention of the payee to<\/em> receive the payment within the <\/em>territory<\/em> of <\/em>India<\/em>, therefore, the<\/em> ld. CIT(A) rightly did not agree with the view taken by the<\/em> Assessing Officer with regard to the addition made on this issue<\/em> and the ld. CIT(A) was justified in directing the Assessing<\/em> Officer to delete the said addition; and that after considering<\/em> the totality of facts and the circumstances of the case, the order<\/em> of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue was not to be interfered with and,<\/em> accordingly, the same was to be upheld.<\/em><\/p>\n

23. In <\/em>“<\/em>Faizan Shoes (P.) Ltd.<\/em>” <\/em>(supra), wherein also there<\/em> was a similar issue of export commission being paid by a shoe<\/em> manufacturer outside the <\/em>India<\/em> without deducting TDS thereon,<\/em> the Hon’ble High Court has held as under :<\/em><\/p>\n

"10. While dealing with Section 9(1) of the Act, the Supreme<\/em> Court in CIT v. Toshoku Ltd. [1980] 125 ITR 525 (SC), on<\/em> considering a transaction where tobacco was exported to <\/em>Japan<\/em> and <\/em>France<\/em> and sold through non-resident assessees who were<\/em> paid commission, held as under:<\/em> 29 The second aspect of the same question is whether the<\/em> commission amounts credited in the books of the statutory<\/em> agent can be treated as incomes accrued, arisen, or deemed to<\/em> have accrued or arisen in <\/em>India<\/em> to the non-resident assessees<\/em> during the relevant year. This takes us to s. 9 of the Act. It is<\/em> urged that the commission amounts should be treated as<\/em> incomes deemed to have accrued or arisen in <\/em>India<\/em> as they,<\/em> according to the department, had either accrued or arisen<\/em> through and from the business connection in <\/em>India<\/em> that existed<\/em> between the non-resident assessees and the statutory agent.<\/em><\/p>\n

This contention overlooks the effect of cl. (a) of the Explanation<\/em> to cl. (i) of sub-s. (1) of s. 9 of the Act which provides that in the<\/em> case of a business of which all the operations are not carried<\/em> out in <\/em>India<\/em>, the income of the business deemed under that<\/em> clause to accrue or arise in <\/em>India<\/em> shall be only such part of the<\/em> income as is reasonably attributable to the operations carried<\/em> out in <\/em>India<\/em>. If all such operations are carried out in <\/em>India<\/em>, the<\/em> entire income accruing therefrom shall be deemed to have<\/em> accrued in <\/em>India<\/em>. If however, all the operations are not carried<\/em> out in the taxable territories, the profits and gains of business<\/em> deemed to accrue in <\/em>India<\/em> through and from business<\/em> connection in <\/em>India<\/em> shall be only such profits and gains as are<\/em> reasonably attributable to that part of the operations carried<\/em> out in the taxable territories. If no operations of business are<\/em> carried out in the taxable territories, it follows that the income<\/em> accruing or arising abroad through or from any business<\/em> connection in <\/em>India<\/em> cannot be deemed to accrue or arise in<\/em> India<\/em> (See CIT v. R. D. Aggarwal & Co. [1965] 56 ITR 20 (SC)<\/em> and Carborandum Co. v. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 335 (SC) which<\/em> are decided on the basis of s. 42 of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922,<\/em> which corresponds to s. 9(1)(i) of the Act).<\/em><\/p>\n

In the instant case, the non-resident assessees did not carry on<\/em> any business operations in the taxable territories. They acted as<\/em> selling agents outside <\/em>India<\/em>. The receipt in <\/em>India<\/em> of the sale<\/em> proceeds of tobacco remitted or caused to be remitted by the<\/em> purchasers from abroad does not amount to an operation<\/em> carried out by the assessees in <\/em>India<\/em> as contemplated by cl. (a)<\/em> of the Explanation to s. 9(1)(i) of the Act. The commission<\/em> amounts which were earned by the non-resident assessees for<\/em> services rendered outside <\/em>India<\/em> cannot, therefore, be deemed to<\/em> be incomes which have either accrued or arisen in <\/em>India<\/em>. <\/em>The<\/em> High Court was, therefore, right in answering the question<\/em> against the department.<\/em><\/p>\n

11. The facts of the present case are akin to the facts of the<\/em> decision in Toshoku Limited case, referred supra. In the instant<\/em> case also the assessee engaged the services of non-resident<\/em> agent to procure export orders and paid commission. That<\/em> apart, the Commissioner of Income (Appeals) as well as the<\/em> Tribunal have correctly applied the principle laid down in GE<\/em> India Technology Cen. (P) Ltd. case, referred supra, to hold<\/em> that the assessee is not liable to deduct tax at source when the<\/em> non-resident agent provides services outside <\/em>India<\/em> on payment<\/em> of commission".<\/em><\/p>\n

24. Regarding AO<\/em>’<\/em>s reliance on <\/em>“<\/em>SKF Boilers<\/em>”<\/em>, it is<\/em> observed that the same is not found to be applicable as the said<\/em> ruling was in respect of an entity based in <\/em>Pakistan<\/em> with which<\/em> India<\/em> did not have any treaty or DTAA, whereas in the present<\/em> appeal, the assessee has made its submission with regard to the<\/em> treat provisions as existing vide the DTAAs entered into by<\/em> India with the countries i.e Italy, <\/em>USA<\/em> and <\/em>UK<\/em> wherein the<\/em> commission agents reside.<\/em><\/p>\n

25. The decision of the Authority for Advance Rulings in the<\/em> case of SKF Boilers & Driers Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) has considered<\/em> its earlier decision in the case of Rajiv Malhotra dated<\/em> 03.07.2006 in <\/em>AAR<\/em> No. 671 of 2005 and the decision in the case<\/em> of Spahi Projects Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) dated 29.07.2009 in <\/em>AAR<\/em> No. 802 of 2009 has not been considered and hence the<\/em> reliance on the decision of <\/em>AAR<\/em> in the case of SKF Boilers &<\/em> Driers Pvt. Ltd. by the learned Assessing Officer does not take<\/em> into account the factual and legal matrix, in which the <\/em>AAR<\/em> has<\/em> held that <\/em>“<\/em>in the instant case, the non-resident assessees did not<\/em> carry on any business operations in the taxable territories.<\/em> They acted as selling agents outside <\/em>India<\/em>. The receipt in <\/em>India<\/em> of the sale proceeds of tobacco remitted or caused to be<\/em> remitted by the purchasers from abroad does not amount to an<\/em> operation carried out by the assessees in <\/em>India<\/em> as contemplated<\/em> by cl.(a) of the Explanation to s.9(1)(i) of the Act<\/em>”<\/em>.<\/em> 26. The AO completed assessments under section 143(3) for<\/em> the assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13 wherein the learned<\/em> Assessing Officer has not made any disallowance in respect of<\/em> the payment of commission to the foreign agents residing in the<\/em> country, with which <\/em>India<\/em> has entered into DTAA.<\/em><\/p>\n

27. Apropos AO<\/em>’<\/em>s contention that the CBDT, vide circular<\/em> No. 7 dated 22.10.2009, had withdrawn its Circulars Nos. 23<\/em> dt. 23.07.69, 163 dt. 29.05.1975 nd 786 dt. 07.02.2000, which<\/em> were based on Circular No. 23; that the Circular No. 23 was<\/em> issued in the context of section 9 of the Act which deems certain<\/em> incomes to accrue or arise in <\/em>India<\/em> for non-residents; and that<\/em> in view of this, the assessee should have deducted tax at source<\/em> u\/s. 195 of the Act on payments of commission made to nonresidents<\/em> agents w.e.f. 22.10.2009, we find that the AO has not<\/em> made out any case that whether the issue of circular no. 7 of<\/em> 2009 by CBDT by which the earlier circulars were withdrawn,<\/em> will make any difference as to bringing the commission<\/em> payments within the ambit of tax as he has not adverted to the<\/em> admitted position that there exists no business connection or<\/em> permanent establishment of such agents in <\/em>India<\/em>.<\/em><\/p>\n

28. It is not disputed that that the withdrawal of the circulars<\/em> No. 23 and 786 has been made on 22.10.2009 vide CBDT<\/em> Circular No. 7 of 2009 and mere withdrawal of the circular<\/em> does not negate the principles of income deemed to accrue or<\/em> arise in <\/em>India<\/em> or outside <\/em>India<\/em>. The CBDT has not stated that<\/em> any part of the circulars is contrary to law or that the circulars<\/em> were wrongly issued or that the law has undergone changes<\/em> holding their withdrawal. Thus, in respect of cases, which<\/em> directly follow with the situations covered by the circulars, the<\/em> liability to tax should continue to be in accordance with section<\/em> 9 of the Act and its intent. The relevant sections, namely section<\/em> 5(2) and section 9 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 not having<\/em> undergone any change in this regard, the clarification in<\/em> Circular No. 23 still prevails even after the withdrawal. No tax<\/em> is therefore deductible under section 195 and consequently, the<\/em> expenditure on export commission payable to a non-resident for<\/em> services rendered outside <\/em>India<\/em> is not liable for withholding<\/em> tax.<\/em><\/p>\n

29. It is seen that the ld. CIT(A) has duly taken into<\/em> consideration the above facts and circumstances besides the<\/em> case laws.<\/em> 32 30. Then, also for A.Y. 2011-12, a similar disallowance was<\/em> made, which was deleted (APB 76-86) by the CIT(A) and the<\/em> department did not file any appeal against the CIT(A)<\/em>’<\/em>s order.<\/em><\/p>\n

31. Apropos, Circulars of CBDT, in <\/em>“<\/em>Kerala Finance<\/em> Corporation vs. CIT (1994) 75 Taxman 573(SC), the Apex<\/em> Court has stated that the circular issued by CBDT under<\/em> section 119 of the Act cannot override or detract the provisions<\/em> of the Act. Thus, the withdrawal of circular does not affect the<\/em> settled position that export commission is not taxable in <\/em>India<\/em> as services are rendered outside <\/em>India<\/em>.<\/em><\/p>\n

32. Moreover, post withdrawals of the circulars, in <\/em>“<\/em>ITO vs.<\/em> Trident Exports<\/em>” <\/em>(2014) 44 Taxman.com 297 (Chennai-Trib), it<\/em> has been held as under :<\/em><\/p>\n

8. We have heard both the parties and carefully perused the<\/em> materials available on record. From the facts of the case, it is<\/em> evident that the assessee has made payments to commission<\/em> agents located in foreign countries. These foreign agents have<\/em> rendered services in their respective countries and had received<\/em> the commission. It is also evident that the foreign agents did not<\/em> have any PE in <\/em>India<\/em> and there was nothing brought on record<\/em> to show that the agreements between the assessee &<\/em> commission agents were entered in <\/em>India<\/em>. In these<\/em> circumstances the decision rendered in the case of Toshuku Ltd.<\/em> (supra) is squarely applicable considering the acts of the case<\/em> before us. In this case the <\/em>Hon<\/em>’<\/em>ble Apex Court<\/em> held that the<\/em> commission agents, who are engaged in the service executed<\/em> outside <\/em>India<\/em>, cannot be considered to carry on any business<\/em> operations in <\/em>India<\/em> and therefore, the provisions of section<\/em> 9(1)(i) of the Act and Explanation 1A will not be applicable.<\/em> Similarly, the <\/em>Hon<\/em>’<\/em>ble Apex Court<\/em>, in the case of GE India<\/em> Technology Cen. (P) Ltd (supra) has held that the expression<\/em> “<\/em>chargeable under the provisions of the Act in section 195(1)<\/em>”<\/em> shows that the remittance has to be of trading receipt, the<\/em> whole or part of which, is liable to tax <\/em>India<\/em>. If tax is not so<\/em> assessable, there is no question of tax at source being deducted.<\/em> Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the<\/em> decisions rendered by the <\/em>Hon<\/em>’<\/em>ble Apex Court<\/em>, we are of the<\/em> considered view that the Ld. CIT(A) had decided the issue in<\/em> accordance with law. Therefore, we hereby confirm the order of<\/em> the Ld. CIT(A).<\/em><\/p>\n

33. In <\/em>“<\/em>DCIT vs. Farida Prime Tannery (P) Ltd.<\/em>” <\/em>(2014) 45<\/em> Taxman.com 174 (Chennai- Trib), it has been held –<\/em><\/p>\n

“<\/em>5. Heard both sides, perused orders of lower authorities<\/em> and the case laws relied on. In all these appeals, Assessing<\/em> Officer disallowed agency\/sales commission paid by the<\/em> assessee to the non resident agents on the ground that assessee<\/em> has not deducted TDS under section 195 of the Act and<\/em> therefore sales commission paid by the assessee is not<\/em> allowable expenditure under section 40(a)(i) of the Act. The<\/em> Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) elaborately considered<\/em> this issue and held that sales commission paid by assessee is<\/em> not chargeable to tax in <\/em>India<\/em> as the services were rendered<\/em> outside <\/em>India<\/em> b non residents and therefore, provisions of<\/em> section 195 have no application so as to disallow commission<\/em> payments under section 40(a)(i) of the Act. While holding so,<\/em> the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) considered various<\/em> decisions on the issue including the decision of Hon<\/em>’<\/em>ble<\/em> Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre (P)<\/em> Ltd. (supra). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in one<\/em> of the case before us in K.H. Arind Pvt. Ltd. following the<\/em> decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of<\/em> Farida Shoes (P) Ltd. (supra) deleted the disallowance<\/em> observing as under:-<\/em><\/p>\n

***********<\/em><\/p>\n

6. Similar issue has been considered by this Tribunal in the<\/em> case of ITO vs. Faizan Shoes (P) Ltd. (2013) 34 taxman.com 79<\/em> (Chennai) wherein the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal, to<\/em> which one of us is a party, after considering the decision of the<\/em> Hon<\/em>’<\/em>ble Supreme Court in the case of GE Technology Centre<\/em> P. Ltd (supra) held that sales commission paid by the assessees<\/em> to non residents are not chargeable to tax in <\/em>India<\/em>, therefore<\/em> provisions of section 195 are not applicable. On going through<\/em> the above order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),<\/em> we find that in all these cases assessees paid sales commission<\/em> to its non resident agents for the services rendered by them<\/em> outside <\/em>India<\/em> and the sales commission is not chargeable to tax<\/em> in <\/em>India<\/em> so as to deduct TDS in such payments under section<\/em> 195 of the Act. Therefore, respectfully, following the decision of<\/em> the Hon<\/em>’<\/em>ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology<\/em> Centre (P) Ltd (supra) and the above cited decision of the coordinate<\/em> bench of this Tribunal, we sustain the order of the<\/em> Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in deleting the<\/em> disallowance made under section 40(a)(i) of the Act.<\/em><\/p>\n

In assesse<\/em>’<\/em>s case also these facts are comparable with the<\/em> decision of the <\/em>Apex Court<\/em> and other decisions cited above. The<\/em> commission amounts which were earned by the non-resident<\/em> assessees for services rendered outside <\/em>India<\/em> cannot, therefore,<\/em> be deemed to be incomes which have either accrued or arisen<\/em> in <\/em>India<\/em>. The said decision of Supreme Court takes into<\/em> consideration the principles of income deemed to accrue or<\/em> arise in <\/em>India<\/em> and outside <\/em>India<\/em>.<\/em>”<\/em><\/p>\n

34. In <\/em>“<\/em>CIT vs. Model Exims, (2014) 42 taxmann.com 446<\/em> (All.<\/em>)<\/em><\/strong>, it has been held to the effect that the fact situation<\/em> contemplated or clarified in the Explanation added by the<\/em> Finance Act, 2010 is not applicable to the present case, as in<\/em> the present case the agents appointed by the assessee had their<\/em> offices situated in a foreign country and that they did not<\/em> provide any managerial services to the assessee; that section<\/em> 9(1)(vii) deals with technical services and has to be read in that<\/em> context; that the agreement of procuring orders would not<\/em> involve any managerial services; that that the agreement did<\/em> not show the applicability or requirement of any technical<\/em> expertise as functioning as selling agent, designer or any other<\/em> technical services; and that therefore, therefore, the Tribunal<\/em> has rightly deleted the disallowance.<\/em><\/p>\n

35. Coming to the case laws relied on by the department in<\/em> the following cases, it has been held that the payment made to<\/em> the non-resident was to be treated as fees for technical services<\/em> covered under the provisions of section 9(1)(vii) :<\/em><\/p>\n

(i). <\/em>ACIT<\/em> vs. Evolv Clothing Co. (P) Ltd., (2013) 33<\/em> taxmann.com 309(Chennai-Trib).<\/em><\/p>\n

(ii). Ashapura Minichem Ltd. Vs. <\/em>ADIT, (2010) 40 SOT<\/em> 229(Mum)<\/em><\/p>\n

(iii). Authority for Advance Rulings <\/em>– <\/em>Rajiv Malhotra<\/em> (2006) 155 Taxman 101 (AAR)<\/em> 35 (iv). GVK Industries Ltd. Vs. ITO (2015) 54<\/em> Taxmann.com 347 (SC)<\/em><\/p>\n

(v). GVK Industries Ltd. Vs. ITO (1998) 96 Taxman<\/em> 179 (AP)<\/em><\/p>\n

(vi). Authority for Advance Rulings <\/em>–<\/em>Shell <\/em>India<\/em> Markets (P) Ltd. (2012) 18 Taxmann.com 46<\/em> (AAR-New <\/em>Delhi<\/em>)<\/em><\/p>\n

(vii). ONGC Videsh Ltd. Vs. <\/em>ITO (2013) 31<\/em> Taxmann.com 119 (Delhi-Trib)<\/em><\/p>\n

(viii). Pr. CIT vs. Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam<\/em> Ltd., ITA No. 86 of 2015 (All. HC)<\/em><\/p>\n

(ix). Bosch Ltd. Vs. ITO, (2012) 28 Taxmann.com 228<\/em> (Bangalore-Trib.)<\/em><\/p>\n

(x). Syntex Industries Ltd. Vs. ADIT (2013) 30<\/em> taxmann.com 290 (Ahmedabad-Trib.)<\/em><\/p>\n

36. In the assessee<\/em>’<\/em>s case, however, as seen hereinabove, the<\/em> relevant provisions sought to be attracted by the AO is section<\/em> 9(1)(i). That being the case, none of these cases, is applicable<\/em> to the present one.<\/em><\/p>\n

37. In <\/em>“<\/em>Palam Gas Service vs. CIT<\/em>” <\/em>81 taxmann.com 43<\/em> (SC), overruling <\/em>“<\/em>CIT vs. Vector Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd.<\/em>”<\/em>,<\/em> 38 taxmann.com 77 (All), the Hon<\/em>’<\/em>ble Supreme Court has<\/em> upheld the disallowance made u\/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act for TDS<\/em> default on freight payment. It has been held that the plea of the<\/em> assessee company that no disallowance can be made u\/s.<\/em> 40(a)(ia), as the word <\/em>“<\/em>payable<\/em>” <\/em>occurring in section 40(a)(ia)<\/em> refers to only those cases, where the amount is yet to be paid<\/em> and does not cover the cases where the amount is actually paid,<\/em> is not acceptable as section 40(a)(ia) covers not only those<\/em> cases wh3ere the amount is payable, but also when it is paid.<\/em> The applicability of this decision to the facts of the present<\/em> case, has not been made out.<\/em> 36 38. In <\/em>“<\/em>Performing Right Society<\/em>”<\/em>, 1976 AIR 1973 (SC), the<\/em> issue related to payment of royalty, which falls u\/s. 9(1)(vi) of<\/em> the Income-tax Act and on this single score, this decision is not<\/em> applicable to the facts of the present case, since the question<\/em> herein is with regard to applicability of section 9(1)(i) of the<\/em> Act. Further, the question raised before the Hon<\/em>’<\/em>ble Supreme<\/em> Court in that case was that since the agreement was executed in<\/em> England and the royalty was payable in England, no income<\/em> accrued or arose in India. In the present case, on the other<\/em> hand, it remained undisputed by the authorities below, that the<\/em> recipient of the commission paid by the assessee had rendered<\/em> their services for the procurement of export orders and the<\/em> realization of the payments for the assessee outside India. It is<\/em> nowhere the case of the authority below or of the department<\/em> before us, that these agents have any Permanent Establishment<\/em> in India or any business connection in India. Therefore,<\/em> “<\/em>Performing Right Society<\/em>” <\/em>(supra) is also not applicable to<\/em> the facts of the present case.<\/em><\/p>\n

39. Otherwise too, it is seen that the decisions relied on by<\/em> the ld. DR pertain to clauses (vi) and (vii) of section 9(1) of the<\/em> Act. In this regard, it is seen that an Explanation was inserted<\/em> in Section 9(2) of the Act, by substitution, with retrospective<\/em> effect from 01.06.1976. This Explanation reads as follows:<\/em> “<\/em>Explanation. – For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared<\/em> that for the purposes of this section, income of a non-resident<\/em> shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India under clause (v) or<\/em> clause (vi) or clause (vii) of sub-section (1) and shall be<\/em> included in the total income of the non-resident, whether or<\/em> not,-<\/em><\/p>\n

(i) The non-resident has a residence or place of business or<\/em> business connection in India; or<\/em><\/p>\n

(ii) the non-resident has rendered services in <\/em>India<\/em>.<\/em>”<\/em><\/p>\n

40. In the case of the assessee, the applied section is Section<\/em> 9(1)(i) of the Act. Therefore, the above Explanation to section<\/em> 9(2) is not applicable, since it does not talk of clause (i) of subsection<\/em> (1) of section 9 of the Act. Therefore, the decisions<\/em> rendered in cases relevant to clauses other than clause (i) of<\/em> Sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Act are not relevant to the<\/em> present case. Otherwise too, as considered hereinabove, it has<\/em> been held that the non-resident did not have any business<\/em> connection in India and there was no liability to withhold tax<\/em> u\/s 195 of the Act. Moreover, the Assessing Officer has himself<\/em> accepted that payments made prior to withdrawal of the<\/em> Circular do not call for any disallowance u\/s 40(a)(i) of the<\/em> Act.<\/em><\/p>\n

41. In view of the above, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is found<\/em> to be well reasoned. The department has not been able to<\/em> dislodge the detailed well reasoned findings recorded therein.<\/em> Therefore, the grievance sought to be raised by the department<\/em> by way of grounds Nos. 1 & 2 is found to be shorn of merit and<\/em> it is rejected as such. The finings of the ld. CIT(A) are<\/em> confirmed.<\/em>”<\/em><\/p>\n

9. Apropos the case laws relied on by the Department in the present case, they are dealt with as under:<\/p>\n

1. <\/em>‘<\/em>ADIT vs. Ess Vee Intellectual Property<\/em>’<\/em>, 7 SOT 38 (Mum-<\/em> Tribunal).<\/em><\/p>\n

As per the facts of that case, the assessee therein was in the business of consultancy in respect of registration and enforcement of intellectual property rights. The services rendered by the assessee also included registration and enforcement of intellectual property rights abroad as well and for that purpose, the assessee had availed services of the entities based abroad. The assessee did not deduct any tax from the payments made to such foreign entities and contended that since the payments were made for the professional services, the same could not be covered by the connotations of the expression ‘fees for technical services’ under section 9(1 )(vii). In the case of the assessee, the commission agents have not provided any consultancy and as such, on facts, ‘Ess Vee Intellectual Property’ (Supra), is not applicable.<\/p>\n

2. <\/em>‘<\/em>Maharashtra<\/em>State<\/em> Electricity Board vs. DCIT<\/em>’<\/em>, (2004) 90 ITD<\/em> 793 (Mum.).<\/em><\/p>\n

In the facts of that case, the position of the law has been settled by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘G.E. India Technology Centre (P) Ltd. vs. CIT’ (2010) 193 Taxman 234 (SC), wherein it has been held that section 195 casts an obligation on the payer to deduct tax at source from payment made to non-residents, which payments are chargeable to tax. Therefore, where the sum paid or credited by the payer is not chargeable to tax, no obligation to deduct any tax would arise. Then, the CBDT, by way of Instruction No. 2\/2014, vide F.No. 500\/33\/2013-FTD-1, dated 26.02.2014, has clarified that withholding tax liability of a payer is with reference to the sum chargeable to tax under the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, a payer cannot be treated as an assessee in default for nonwithholding from payments which are not chargeable to tax under the Act.<\/p>\n

3. <\/em>‘<\/em>ITO vs. Device Driven (India) (P) Ltd.<\/em>’<\/em>, (2014) 29 ITR(T) 263<\/em> (Cochin-Trib.).<\/em><\/p>\n

As per the facts of that case, where the assessee-company, engaged in development and sale of software, paid export commission to its non resident director, in view of the fact that the said director had to assist the assessee-company in all respects and, moreover, he had to ensure that necessary modifications were carried out in software to make it suitable to the requirements of the customers, the payment made to ‘B’ constituted ‘independent personal services’ taxable in India under article 14 of the India – Switzerland DTAA an, thus, the assessee was liable to deduct tax at source while making the said payments. These facts are not applicable in the case of the present assessee.<\/p>\n

4. <\/em>‘<\/em>GVK Industries Ltd. vs. ITO, (1997) 228 ITR 564 (AP) &<\/em> (2015) 371 ITR 453 (SC).<\/em><\/p>\n

This case relates to the applicability of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and so, it is not applicable in the case of the assessee.<\/p>\n

5. <\/em>‘<\/em>Performing Rights Society Ltd. vs. CIT<\/em>’<\/em>, 1976 AIR 1973 (SC).<\/em><\/p>\n

As per the facts of that case, the non-resident commission agents were procuring export orders and assisted in the timely realization of the export proceeds. It was an accepted fact that they did not have any permanent establishment \/ business connection in India. The question that the agreements had been executed in India or outside India was held to be of no relevance. 40 10. The following decisions relate to Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and so they are not applicable to the present case:<\/p>\n

1. <\/em>‘<\/em>Metro & Metro vs. Add. CIT<\/em>’<\/em>. in ITA No.<\/em> 393\/Agra\/2012 (ITAT-Agra).<\/em><\/p>\n

2. <\/em>‘<\/em>ACIT<\/em> vs. Evolve Clothing Co. (P) Ltd.<\/em>’ <\/em>in<\/em> ITA No.2100\/Mds\/2012 (Chennai-Trib).<\/em><\/p>\n

3. <\/em>‘<\/em>Ashapura Minichem Ltd. vs. ADIT<\/em>’ <\/em>in ITA<\/em> No. 2508\/Mum\/08 (Mumbai-Trib.)<\/em><\/p>\n

4. <\/em>‘<\/em>ONGC Videsh Ltd. vs. ITO<\/em>’<\/em>, (2013) 141<\/em> ITD 556 (Delhi).<\/em><\/p>\n

11. ‘Shell India Markets (P) Ltd. vs. CIT’, order dated 17.01.2012, passed by the Authority for Advance Ruling, New Delhi, in AAR No.833 of 2009 (Copy placed on record) relates to applicability of Section 9(1)(vi). Again, this decision too is not applicable in the facts of the present case.<\/p>\n

12. In view of the above, following our aforesaid decision in the case of ‘M\/s Nuova Shoes, Agra’, the grievance sought to be made out by the Department is rejected as without merit and the well reasoned order of the ld. CIT(A) is confirmed.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

It is not disputed that that the withdrawal of the circulars No. 23 and 786 has been made on 22.10.2009 vide CBDT Circular No. 7 of 2009 and mere withdrawal of the circular does not negate the principles of income deemed to accrue or arise in India or outside India. The CBDT has not stated that any part of the circulars is contrary to law or that the circulars were wrongly issued or that the law has undergone changes holding their withdrawal. Thus, in respect of cases, which directly follow with the situations covered by the circulars, the liability to tax should continue to be in accordance with section 9 of the Act and its intent. 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 even after the withdrawal. No tax is therefore deductible under section 195 and consequently, the expenditure on export commission payable to a non-resident for services rendered outside India is not liable for withholding tax<\/p>\n

Read more ›<\/a><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-18301","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-judgements","category-tribunal","judges-a-d-jain-jm","judges-mitha-lal-meena-am","section-407","section-40ai","section-70","section-76","counsel-manoj-khurana","court-itat-agra","catchwords-commission","catchwords-foreign-agents","catchwords-tds-deduction","genre-domestic-tax"],"acf":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18301","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=18301"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18301\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=18301"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=18301"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=18301"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}