Search Results For: Fees for technical services


DCIT vs. Welspun Corporation Limited (ITAT Ahmedabad)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , ,
GENRE: ,
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 3, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 18, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 9(1): Important law explained as to the taxability of export sale commission payments received by non-resident agents and the obligation of the assessee to deduct TDS thereon in the context of s. 9(1)(i)/ 9(1)(vii) of the Act and relevant provisions of the DTAA

In the light of the above legal position, what we need to decide at the outset is whether the amounts paid by the assessee to the non-resident agents could be termed as “consideration for the rendering of any managerial, technical and consultancy services”. As we do so, it is useful to bear in mind the fact that even going by the stand of the Assessing Officer, at best services rendered by the nonresident to the agent included technical services but it is for this reason that the amounts paid to these agents, on account of commission on exports, should be treated as fees for technical services. Even proceeding on the assumption that these non-resident agents did render the technical services, which, as we will see a little later, an incorrect assumption anyway, what is important to appreciate is that the amounts paid by the assessee to these agents constituted consideration for the orders secured by the agents and not the services alleged rendered by the agents. The event triggering crystallization of liability of the assessee, under the commission agency agreement, is the event of securing orders and not the rendition of alleged technical services. In a situation in which the agent does not render any of the services but secures the business anyway, the agent is entitled to his commission which is computed in terms of a percentage of the value of the order

Posted in All Judgements, Tribunal

DCIT vs. Bombardier Transportation India Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Ahmedabad)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: January 3, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 16, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2013-14
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 9(1)(vi)/ 9(1)(vii): Important law explained on whether payment for use of equipment can be assessed as "royalty" and whether payment for rendering of services can be assessed as "fees for technical services" in the context of s. 9(1)(vi) and 9(1)(vii) and Article 12 of the India-Canada DTAA

Article 12(4) provides that, “The term “fees for technical included services” as used in this Article means payments of any kind to any person in consideration for services of a managerial, technical or consultancy nature (including the provision of such services through technical or other personnel) if such services : (a) are ancillary and subsidiary to the application or enjoyment of the right, property or information for which a payment described in paragraph 3 is received ; or (b) make available technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or processes, which enables the person acquiring the services to apply the technology contained therein”. In order to invoke article 12(4)(a) it is necessary that such services should “make available” technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how, or processes or consist of the development and transfer of a technical plan or technical design The services provided by BT Canada were simply management support or consultancy services which did not involve any transfer of technology. It is not even the case of the Assessing Officer that the services were such that the recipient of service was enabled to perform these services on its own without any further recourse to the service provider. It is in this context that we have to examine the scope of expression ‘make available’

Posted in All Judgements, Tribunal

ITO vs. Emami Paper Mills Ltd (ITAT Kolkata)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE: ,
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 4, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 14, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2012-13
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 9(1)(vii)/ Article 12: There is a difference between a 'contract of work' and a ‘contract of service’. In a 'contract of work', the activity is predominantly physical while in a 'contract of service', the dominant feature of the activity is intellectual. Fees paid with respect to a ‘contract of work’ does not constitute "fees for technical services" and consequently the assessee is not liable to deduct TDS u/s 195

There is a difference between ‘Contract of work and ‘Contract of service’. The two words convey different ideas. In the ‘Contract of work’ the activity is predominantly physical; it is tangible. In the activity referred as ‘Contract of service’, the dominant feature of the activity is intellectual, or at least, mental. Certainly, ‘Contract of work’ also involves intellectual exercise to some extent. Even a gardener has to bestow sufficient care in doing his job; so is the case with a mason, carpenter or a builder. But the physical (tangible) aspect is more dominant than the intellectual aspect. In contrast, in the case of rendering any kind of ‘service’, intellectual aspect plays the dominant role. In the case under consideration, the scope of work mentioned in the agreement clearly explains that it is ‘contract of work’ to dismantle the machinery, therefore, it is not a ‘contract of service’ hence payment by the assessee is not for technical services, therefore, the assessee company is not liable to deduct TDS

Posted in All Judgements, Tribunal

Pr. CIT vs. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd (P&H High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 9, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 19, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2012-13
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 194C vs. 194J: Law on whether payments for construction, erection & commissioning etc of plants involving inputs from technical personnel constitutes "payments for technical services" and attracts TDS obligations u/s 194J in the light of Bharti Cellular 330 ITR 239 (SC) explained

The contention of the revenue that in accordance with the judgement of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Bharti Cellular Ltd., (2011) 330 ITR 239 (SC), the matter ought to be remanded to the Assessing Officer to examine technical experts on this issue is not well founded. Firstly, the department never made an application for examining an expert. Secondly, it is not the department’s case that there was any material other than the contracts which required consideration. Apart from raising this contention, no such case was made out even before us at the hearing of this appeal. The case before us merely requires a construction of the contract. The extent of human intervention that was relied upon by the department is based on the provisions of the contract itself

Posted in All Judgements, High Court

CIT vs. Halliburton Export Inc (Delhi High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE: ,
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 11, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 14, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10, 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 9(1)(vi): Though in Infrasoft 220 Taxman 273 (Del) the impact of the amendment to s. 9(1)(vi) on the question whether consideration received for sale of pre-packaged software was “royalty” or “fee for technical services” or "business income" was not examined, it is not required to be examined because u/s 90 (3) provides that the Act prevails only if it is more beneficial compared to the DTAA

The short question considered by the Court in Director of Income Tax v. Infrasoft Limited (2014) 220 Taxman 273 (Del) was whether the term “royalty” covered by Article 12 (3) of the DTAA would apply in the context of sale of pre-packaged copyrighted software. The Court stated that it has not examined the effect of the subsequent amendment to Section 9 (1) (vi) of the Act and also whether the amount received for use of software would be royalty in terms thereof for the reason that the Assessee is covered by the DTAA, the provisions of which are more beneficial

Posted in All Judgements, High Court

Technip Singapore Pte Ltd vs. DIT (Delhi High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , , ,
GENRE: ,
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 2, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 4, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Law on whether "installation or construction activity" constitutes a PE under Article 5 and whether "mobilisation/ demobilisation charges" can be treated as "royalty" u/s 9 (1) (vi) & Article 12 (3) (b) of the DTAA and whether "installation charges" could be treated as "Fees for Technical Services" under Explanation 2 below s. 9 (1) (vii) read with Article 12 (4) (a) of the India-Singapore DTAA explained

Therefore, on two counts the finding of the AAR on FTS cannot be sustained. The first being that the installation services are not incidental to the mobilisation/demobilisation service. The contract was in fact for installation, erection of equipment. Mobilisation/demobilisation constituted an integral part of the contract. Secondly, the AAR has proceeded on a factual misconception that the dominion and control of the equipment was with IOCL. It was erroneously concluded that the payment for such mobilisation/demobilisation constitutes royalty. In that view of the matter, the consideration for installation cannot not be characterized as FTS and brought within the ambit of Article 12.4(a) of the DTAA. The resultant position is that no part of the income earned by the Petitioner from the contract with IOCL can be taxed in India

Posted in All Judgements, High Court

Gujarat Pipavav Port Limited vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 23, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 26, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Installation services provided by a foreign enterprise which are inextricably connected to the sale of goods are not assessable as "fees for technical services" or as "business profits" under the DTAA

Though service of installation is covered by the FTS clause as well as Installation PE clause of the India China treaty and though the installation contract (including period of after sales service) exceeded 183 days, the income from installation activity was neither taxable as FTS nor as business income since (i) the service of installation was inextricably connected to sale of goods, the same could not be treated as FIS or FTS (ii) specific installation PE clause in India China Treaty will override General FTS clause (iii) the aforesaid threshold limit of 183 days would have to be applied to the actual period of installation (which was less than 183 days) and not the contractual period

Posted in All Judgements, Tribunal

ACIT vs. M/s. BSR & Co (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE: ,
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: May 6, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 20, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 40(a)(ia): Payments by a CA firm to foreign professional entities for services rendered abroad is not taxable under Articles 12 and 15 of the India-USA DTAA. The retrospective amendment to s. 9(1)(vii) to tax services rendered outside India does not apply in the context of a disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) in the hands of the payer

Ostensibly, the requirement of rendering services in India in order to attract section 9(1)(vii) of the Act was removed by insertion of Explanation by the Finance Act, 2010 with retrospective effect from 1/4/1976. This has been understood by the Revenue to say that inspite of the services having been rendered by the recipients outside India, the same is taxable in India by applying the aforesaid amendment. In our view, such retrospective amendment would be determinative of the tax liability in the hands of the recipients of income. So however, in the present case, what is held against the assessee is the failure to deduct tax at source at the time of payment of such income. Ostensibly, dehors the aforesaid amendment, the impugned income was not subject to tax deduction at source in India as per the prevailing legal position. Taxability of a sum in the hands of recipient, on account of a subsequent retrospective amendment would not expose the assessee-payer to an impossible situation of requiring deduction of tax at source on the date of payment. Therefore, on this count also the assessee cannot be held to be in default in not deducting tax at source so as to trigger the disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Act

Posted in All Judgements, Tribunal

CIT vs. Kotak Securities Ltd (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 29, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 31, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2005-06
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 9(1)(vii)/ 40(a)(ia)/ 194J: “Technical services” & “Managerial and Consultancy service” denotes services that cater to special & exclusive needs of the consumer/user. A "facility", even if termed as a service, which is available to all users, does not come within the ambit of “technical services” in Explanation 2 of s. 9(1)(vii)

“Technical services” like “Managerial and Consultancy service” would denote seeking of services to cater to the special needs of the consumer/user as may be felt necessary and the making of the same available by the service provider. It is the above feature that would distinguish/identify a service provided from a facility offered. While the former is special and exclusive to the seeker of the service, the latter, even if termed as a service, is available to all and would therefore stand out in distinction to the former. The service provided by the Stock Exchange for which transaction charges are paid fails to satisfy the aforesaid test of specialized, exclusive and individual requirement of the user or consumer who may approach the service provider for such assistance/service. It is only service of the above kind that, according to us, should come within the ambit of the expression “technical services” appearing in Explanation 2 of Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. In the absence of the above distinguishing feature, service, though rendered, would be mere in the nature of a facility offered or available which would not be covered by the aforesaid provision of the Act

Posted in All Judgements, Supreme Court

Raytheon Ebasco Overseas Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: March 11, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 14, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 1998-99
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 9(1)(vii)/ Article 12: “Startup services”, though technical in nature, are not assessable as “fees for technical services” u/s 9(1)(vii) if they do not involve any “construction, assembly mining or like projects”. The services are also not taxable under Article 12 as they do not “make available” technical knowledge

We are of the opinion that technical services or the start-up services, provided by the assessee, did not include any construction, assembly mining or like projects and therefore the payment received by it would not constitute FTS as per the provisions of the Act. Here, we would like to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court delivered in the case of Neyveli Lignite Corporation (243ITR459).In that case the assessee was engaged in the mining of lignite. It had entered in to an agreement with a Hungarian company for acquiring steam generating plant for more efficient running of its business. The AO held that income had accrued to Hungarian company in India and hence the Indian company was liable for deduction of tax. The Hon’ble court decided the issue in favour of the assessee and held that receipts could not be brought to tax in India, that the payments made by it were not taxable under the provisions of section 9 of the Act. (Ichikawajama-Harima Heavy Industries Ltd (288 ITR 408) referred)

Posted in All Judgements, Tribunal