(298.1 KiB, 1,275 DLs)

S. 147: Non-supply of recorded reasons before passing reassessment order renders the reopening void. Subsequent supply does not validate reassessment order

After completing the s. 143(3) assessment, the AO received information from the Volcker Committee report that the assessee had paid “illegal” commission for supply of goods to Iraq under the “Oil for Food Programme” of the UN. The AO issued a s. 148 notice to disallow the commission and supplied the assessee with only the “gist” of the recorded reasons. The complete recorded reasons were furnished only after the passing of the reassessment order. In the reassessment order, the AO disallowed the commission. The CIT (A) upheld the reassessment. On appeal by the assessee to the Tribunal, HELD allowing the appeal:

As per GKN Driveshafts 259 ITR 19 (SC) and the rules of natural justice, the AO was bound to furnish reasons within a reasonable time so that the assessee could file objections against the same. The adherence to this procedure is a necessity because at the preliminary stage itself, the AO may be satisfied with the explanation of the assessee. A reassessment completed without furnishing the reasons actually recorded by the AO for reopening of assessment is not sustainable in law. The subsequent supply of the reasons would not make good of the illegality suffered at the stage of reopening of the assessment. On facts, though the assessee asked for the recorded reasons, the same was supplied to him only after the passing of the reassessment order. This failure on the part of the AO renders the reassessment order invalid (Fomento Resorts & Videsh Sanchar Nigam 340 ITR 66 (Bom) (SLP dismissed) followed (included in file)).

(52.4 KiB, 1,252 DLs)

S. 271(1)(c) penalty not levaiable for breach of s. 50C

The assessee sold land of which he was the owner for Rs.36 lakhs and offered capital gains on that basis. The AO reopened the assessment u/s 147 on the ground that the assessee ought to have taken the consideration at the market value of the land as per s. 50C. The assessee accepted and offered capital gains as per s. 50C. The AO levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) which was confirmed by the CIT (A) on the ground that the assessee’s action of offering capital gains u/s 50C was after the s. 148 notice and not voluntary. On appeal by the assessee to the tribunal, HELD allowing the appeal:

The AO had not disputed the consideration received by the assessee & the addition had been made solely on the basis of the deeming provisions of s. 50C. The assessee had furnished all the facts of the sale which had not been doubted by the AO. The fact that the assessee agreed to the additions because of the deeming provisions of s. 50C does not mean that he filed inaccurate particulars of his income. The assessee’s acceptance of the addition on the basis of the valuation made by the stamp valuation authority is not conclusive proof that the sale consideration as per the sale agreement was incorrect and wrong and so s. 271(1)(c) penalty cannot be levied (Renu Hingorani (ITAT Mumbai) followed)

(541.1 KiB, 1,196 DLs)

“Education cess” is “additional surcharge” & is included in “tax” under DTAA. If DTAA caps the rate of “tax” payable, cess is not payable by foreign assessee

The assessee, a Singapore company, offered interest and royalty income to tax at the rate of 15% & 10% as specified in Articles 11 & 12 of the India-Singapore DTAA respectively. The AO held that the assessee was also liable to pay surcharge and education cess in addition to the tax. The CIT (A) upheld the assessee’s claim that surcharge was not leviable though he rejected the claim with regard to cess. On further appeal by the assessee, HELD allowing the appeal:

Articles 11 & 12 of the DTAA provide that the “tax” chargeable in India on interest and royalties cannot exceed 15% and 10% respectively. The expression ‘tax’ is defined in Article 2(1) to include ‘income tax’ and includes ‘surcharge’ thereon. Article 2(2) extends the scope of the ‘tax’ by laying down that it shall also cover “any identical or substantially similar taxes which are imposed by either Contracting State after the date of signature of the present Agreement in addition to, or in place of, the taxes referred to in paragraph 1”. “Cess” was introduced by the Finance Act, 2004 and it is described in s. 2(11) of the Finance Act 2004 as “additional surcharge for purposes of the Union, to be called the “Education Cess on income-tax”. Accordingly, the “education cess” is in the nature of an “additional surcharge” and is covered by Article 2. Accordingly, education cess cannot be levied in respect of the assessee’s tax liability.

(200.6 KiB, 1,580 DLs)

No s. 14A disallowance if tax-free investments capable of taxable income

The assessee, an investment company, issued optionally convertible premium notes which entitled the holder thereof to a premium on redemption. The proceeds of the issue was invested by the assessee in acquiring the shares of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd (“RUPL”), the income whereof was exempt u/s 10(23G). The assessee claimed a deduction of the premium paid to the holders of the notes which was rejected by the AO & CIT (A) on the ground the expenditure was incurred in respect of tax-free income and so deduction could not be allowed u/s 14A. Before the Tribunal, the assessee argued that s. 14A could not apply because (a) though the dividends and LTCG on the shares of RUPL were exempt u/s 10(23G), the STCG & stock-lending income were not exempt and (b) the assessee had in fact not received any tax-free income on the shares. HELD upholding the assessee’s plea:

(i) Though the proceeds of the premium notes on which the redemption premium was paid had been invested in the shares/debentures of RUPL and although the dividend income and LTCG from the said investment was exempt u/s 10(23G), the premium cannot be regarded as expenditure incurred exclusively in relation to earning of exempt income so as to invoke s. 14A because the said investment had the potential of generating taxable income in the form of STCG etc;

(ii) Further, as no taxable income was actually earned by the assessee, disallowance u/s 14A was not sustainable. (Delite Enterprises followed). The fact that in Delite Enterprises, the appeal was dismissed on the ground that no Q of law arises does not mean that it is not a decision on merits. Even a dismissal of an appeal on the ground that no Q of law arises results in a merger (Nirma Industries 283 ITR 402 (Guj) followed)

(640.1 KiB, 1,164 DLs)

Consultancy fees, if not taxable as “fees for technical services”, is not taxable as “other income”

The assessee paid consultancy fees to a Singapore company on which tax was not deducted at source. The AO held that the said consultancy fees were assessable as “fees for technical services” u/s 9(1)(vii) and that the failure to deduct TDS meant that the amount had to be disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia). This was reversed by the CIT (A). On appeal by the department to the Tribunal, HELD dismissing the appeal:

(i) While the consultancy fees may constitute “fees for technical services” u/s 9(1)(vii), it does not fall within the ambit of that term in the India-Singapore DTAA because it does not “make available any technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or processes, which enables the person acquiring the services to apply the technology contained therein”. The services were simply consultancy services which did not involve any transfer of technology and so were not assessable as “fees for technical services” (Guy Carpenter (Del) & De Beers (Kar) followed);

(ii) The department’s argument that if the sum is not assessable as “fees for technical services”, it is assessable as “other income” Article 23 of the DTAA is not acceptable because that Article applies only to “items of income which are not expressly mentioned in the foregoing Articles of this Agreement”. Article 23 does not apply to items of income which can be classified under Articles 6-22 whether or not taxable under these articles. Therefore, income from consultancy services, which cannot be taxed under articles 7, 12 or 14 because the conditions laid down therein are not satisfied, cannot be taxed under article 23 either.

(123.2 KiB, 1,880 DLs)

No s. 14A disallowance if there is no tax-free income

The assessee, a partner in a firm, borrowed funds and advanced it to the firm on terms that the firm would pay interest if it made a profit. For one year, the firm paid interest which was offered as income by the assessee while for the second year it did not pay interest as it made a loss. The assessee claimed the interest paid on the borrowing as a deduction u/s 36(1)(iii). The AO disallowed the claim on the ground that as the borrowings had been invested in the firm and the income from the firm was exempt u/s 10(2A), the interest expenditure was not allowable u/s 14A. This was reversed by the CIT (A). On appeal, the Tribunal upheld the CIT (A) on the ground that as there was no exemption claimed u/s 10(2A) by the assessee and there was no tax-free income, s. 14A could not apply. The department filed an appeal in the High Court in which it argued that as the profits derived by the assessee from the firm was exempt u/s 10(2A), the interest on the borrowed funds used to invest in the firm was disallowable u/s 14A. HELD by the High Court dismissing the appeal:

In so far as Question (A) is concerned, on facts we find that there is no (tax-free) profit for the relevant assessment year. Hence the question as framed would not arise.

(698.3 KiB, 1,602 DLs)

Law on taxability of “turnkey contracts” for offshore & onshore supply explained

The assessee, a Chinese company, entered into two contracts with WBPDCL, one for the offshore supply of equipment and the other for onshore supplies, design, engineering and construction etc. Separate consideration was specified for each activity. The assessee claimed, relying on Ishikawjima-Harima 288 ITR 408 (SC), that the profits from offshore supply was not taxable in India. The AO rejected the claim on the ground that the project was a “turnkey” one with “cross-fall breach clause” and “single point responsibility” and that the split contracts were entered into only for convenience. It was held that the project office PE played a role in the offshore supplies. He referred the matter of determination of ALP of the onshore supplies to the TPO who determined a profit of Rs. 24 crores as against the loss of Rs. 67 crores offered by the assessee. This was upheld by the DRP. On appeal by the assessee to the Tribunal, HELD:

(i) As regards the assessee’s claim, relying on Ishikawajima-Harima, that offshore supply contracts cannot be taxed, there is a school of thought as advocated in Alstom Transport SA (AAR) that in view of the later & larger bench judgement in Vodafone International 341 ITR 1, the Ishikawajima-Harima principle is not good law and a “dissecting approach” cannot be adopted. While it is arguable that the observations in Vodafone regarding “looking at the transactions as a whole and not adopting dissecting approach” cannot be applied in all cases where separate contracts are entered into for offshore supplies and onshore services, the observations are applicable in cases where the values assigned to the onshore services are prima facie unreasonable vis-à-vis values assigned to the offshore supplies, which make no economic sense when viewed in isolation with offshore supplies contract. The transactions have to be looked at as a whole, and not on standalone basis, when the overall transaction is split in an unfair and unreasonable manner with a view to evade taxes. In order that such a situation can arise, it is sine qua non that while the assessee submits the bids for different segments (e.g. offshore and onshore) separately, these bids are considered together, as a single cohesive unit, by the other party, and this fact must be apparent from material on record. The fact that there is a “cross fall breach clause” which provides that a breach in one contract will automatically be classified as breach of the other contract give an indication that the “offshore supplies” contract and “onshore supplies” contract have to be viewed as an integrated contract, this fact by itself does not indicate that the onshore services and supplies contract is understated so as to avoid tax in the source country. That would be the situation in which while offshore supplies show unreasonable profits while onshore supplies and services result in unreasonable losses;

(ii) The fact that the assessee claims to have made a loss on its entire project, including the onshore activities, is not reason enough to show that the value of the onshore activities was deliberately kept at a lower amount to avoid taxability in India because it may make commercial sense that the offshore supplies are made at loss, as long as these supplies are at less than incremental costs i.e. marginal costs of offshore supplies, and thus overall losses of the assessee are minimized (matter remanded for the AO to examine the assessee’s claim regarding overall loss on the project).

(131.5 KiB, 955 DLs)

S. 158BE: A panchnama which does not record a search does not extend limitation

The AO issued two authorizations for search, one dated 17.2.2002 and the other 20.12.2002. In respect of the first authorisation, the last panchnama was drawn on 3.1.2003 while in respect of the second authorization, the last panchnama was drawn on 27.2.2002. The s. 158BC assessment order was passed on 31.1.2005 on the basis that the “last panchnama” was drawn on 3.1.2003. The assessee claimed that as the panchnama dated 3.1.2003 was merely for revocation of a s. 132(3) order, it was not a “panchnama of search” and so could be taken into account. The “last panchnama” was the one dated 27.2.2002 according to which the assessment order was barred by limitation u/s 158BE read with Explanation 2 thereof. HELD by the Special Bench upholding the plea:

(i) S. 158BE (1) prescribes the time limit for completion of the block assessment with reference to the end of the month in which the “last of the authorisations for search” was executed. Explanation 2 provides that the authorisation shall be deemed to have been executed “on the conclusion of search as recorded in the last panchnama drawn“. The “panchnama” referred to in Explanation 2 (a) to s.158BE is a panchnama which documents the conclusion of a search. If a panchnama does not reveal that a search was at all carried out on the day to which it relates, it would not be a panchnama relating to a search and consequently would not be relevant to determine the time limit for passing the assessment order (SK Katyal 308 ITR 168 (Del), White & White Minerals 239 CTR 330 (Raj) & C. Ramaiah Reddy 244 CTR (Kar) 126 followed;

(ii) On facts, the panchnama dated 3.1.2003 was drawn as a formality to lift the prohibitory order. There was no conclusion of search. Whatever material was required to be seized or impounded was already seized/impounded by the Department. It was merely a release order and could not extend the period of limitation. Consequently, the s. 158BC assessment order is barred by limitation;

(iii) However, the assessee’s argument that if there were multiple authorisations, only the “last panchnama” (27.02.2002) in respect of the “last authorization” (20.12.2002) could be had regard to for purposes of computing limitation and not a later panchnama (3.1.2003) in respect of an earlier authorisation (17.2.2002) is not acceptable. The result of the deeming provision in Expl 2 to s. 158BE is that even an authorization which may not be the last authorization would become the “last authorization” if a panchnama in respect thereof is drawn last. The point of time of issue of the authorisation is not relevant. The point of time when the last panchnama is drawn (whether in respect of the first or last authorization) is relevant (Anil Minda 328 ITR 320 (Del) followed; C. Ramaiah Reddy 244 CTR (Kar) 126 distinguished).

(188.1 KiB, 1,551 DLs)

S. 206AA PAN law read down to not apply to assessees without taxable income

The assessee, whose income was below taxable limit, filed Form 15G and requested that no TDS be deducted on the interest on fixed deposit. However, she was informed that in view of s. 206AA inserted by FA 2009, TDS would have to be deducted in the absence of PAN. The assessee filed a writ petition to challenge s. 206AA as being arbitrary and unconstitutional to the extent that it compelled persons with no taxable income to obtain a PAN. HELD upholding the challenge:

U/s 139A, only persons whose income is chargeable to tax are required to obtain a PAN. However, s. 206AA compels even persons without a taxable income to obtain a PAN to avoid TDS. This creates difficulty for poor and illiterate persons who make small investments and discourages them to invest money. S. 206AA runs counter to s. 139A and is discriminatory. Though the Legislature’s intention is to bring maximum persons under the income-tax net, it may not insist that even persons whose income is below the taxable limit have to compulsorily obtain a PAN. If any tax avoidance is detected, that can be taken care of by penal provisions. Accordingly, s.206AA is read down as being inapplicable to persons whose income is less than the taxable limit. Banks & financial institutions should not insist upon PAN from such small investors. It continues to apply to persons whose income is above the taxable limit.

(155.4 KiB, 1,284 DLs)

Fact that third party invoices are paid does not necessarily show “reimbursement”

The assessee, a Netherlands company, was awarded a dredging contract to be carried out at Port Mundra. It assigned the contract to its fully owned Indian subsidiary. It also entered into a “cost allocation agreement” under which it agreed to provide to the subsidiary all services necessary to execute the dredging contract in return for a reimbursement of the costs. It received Rs. 11.53 crores from the subsidiary towards invoices raised by third parties and claimed that as it was a “reimbursement of expenditure” incurred by the assessee it was not chargeable to tax. The AO & DRP assessed the receipts as “fees for technical services”. It was also held that the subsidiary was a “Dependent Agent Permanent Establishment”. On appeal by the assessee, HELD dismissing the appeal:

(i) While it is true that reimbursement of expenditure is not income, the payment made by the subsidiary to the assessee cannot be regarded as a “reimbursement” because (a) the subsidiary had no technical expertise to carry out the contract & the assessee had rendered technical services to it such as arranging the dredgers from abroad & choosing appropriate parties to execute the work. The facilities arranged by the assessee to support the operations of the subsidiary are not layman’s activities and require technical know-how. The argument that the dredgers were simply brought from outside India and taken back is over-simplified, (b) though it is claimed that the expenses were reimbursed at par with the invoices issued by third parties, there is nothing on record to show that the price negotiated between the assessee and the third parties are prices comparable to similar services provided by international parties. It is not established that the assessee offered services to the subsidiary on cost to cost basis at best reasonable and competent prices available at that point of time. Therefore, an element of profit in the invoices raised by third parties cannot be ruled out even though what was paid by the subsidiary to the assessee is the amount reflected in the invoice. Therefore, the fact that what has was paid by the subsidiary to the assessee was only the amount reflected in the invoices issued by the third parties, does not go to support the argument that the payments were only reimbursement of expenditure and there was no element of profit in those amounts. As the subsidiary had no technical expertise, the inevitable conclusion is that the assessee rendered technical services to its subsidiary and the payments are in the nature of fees for technical services;

(ii) The subsidiary constituted a dependent agent PE (DAPE) of the assessee because de facto the assessee was carrying on the contract work on behalf of the subsidiary and if we pierce the veil of the assignment contract and go to the root, there is interlacing of activities and interlocking of funds between the assessee and the subsidiary in executing the dredging contract. There is a relationship of agency and a PE is created.