Transfer Pricing: Existence of income is a jurisdictional requirement for the applicability of T. P. provisions & the AO must deal with it after giving personal hearing before making reference to TPO

It is clear from s. 92(1) that there must be income arising/ potentially arising by an international transaction for the application of the transfer pricing provisions. This is a jurisdictional requirement and has to be dealt with by the AO when specifically raised by the assessee before making reference to the AO. Grant of personal hearing before referring the matter to the TPO has to be read into s. 92CA(1) in cases where the very jurisdiction to tax under Chapter X is challenged by the assessee (Veer Gems 351 ITR 35 (Guj) disagreed with to the extent it holds that no hearing is required at the stage of reference to the TPO even on jurisdictional issues). If, after the hearing the assessee, the AO holds that there is an international transaction, that would be binding on the TPO

S. 37(1): Expenditure on acquiring master copy of software subject to obsolescence is deductible as revenue expenditure

The assessee’s claim that the master copies had high accelerated obsolescence and that even at the point of time of import it was difficult to say whether the version would be replaced by a new or updated version after one day or a month had not been disproved. Also the facts showed that there were periodical imports of the master copies and that the average price per copy was minimal. This was not a case where the master copies contained operating or system software, which normally did not require frequent up-gradation or changes. It is also not the case of an assessee which is the end user of software. It is a case where the assessee is required to repeatedly pay for the master copy media in view of frequent newer or updated versions of the application software from time to time. Once newer or better version of the application software is available, the earlier version is not saleable and does not have any market value for the seller i.e. the assessee. Also, as per the “matching concept” in accountancy, while determining whether expenditure is capital or revenue in nature, the question whether the expenditure would create an asset which is of value in further assessment periods and should be amortised (i.e. depreciated) as long as it has value (subject to the statutory provisions) requires to be considered. If the expenditure does lead to creation of an asset but of a limited or short life, it has to be treated as a liability and not as a fixed asset. The said expenditure cannot be valued for price for future financial years (Ashahi India Safety Glass 346 ITR 329 (Del), G.E. Capital Services 300 ITR 420 (Del), O.K. Play 346 ITR 57 (P&H), IAEC Pumps 232 ITR 316 (SC) referred)

Amount received by partner on his retirement is not chargeable to tax as capital gains

The Tribunal has correctly referred to the fact that N.A. Mody 162 ITR 420 (Bom) followed Tribhuvandas G. Patel 115 ITR 95 and that the same has been reversed by the Apex Court in Tribhuvandas G. Patel 263 ITR 515. This Court in Prashant S. Joshi 324 ITR 154 (Bom) has also referred to the decision of Tribuvandas G. Patel rendered by this Court and its reversal by the Apex Court. Moreover, the decision of this Court in Prashant S. Joshi placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v/s. R. Lingamallu Rajkumar 247 ITR 801 wherein it has been held that amounts received on retirement by a partner is not subject to capital gains tax

S. 9(1)(vi)/ Article 12: Equipment rental is taxable as “royalty” even if payer does not have control. The retrospective insertion of Explanation 5 to s. 9(1)(vi) is purely clarificatory

The High Court had to consider the following issues in the context of a bare-boat charter of a shipping vessel from a foreign party, the income whereof was held assessable as “royalty” u/s 9(1)(vi) & Article 12 in the hands of the foreign party: (i) whether the expression ‘use or right to use‘ in clause (iva) of Explanation 2 to s. 9(1)(vi) & Article 12 of the DTAA requires that there should be a “transfer of effective control for use” in favour of the lessee?, (ii) what is the impact of the retrospective insertion of Explanation 5 to s. 9(1)(vi) on the taxability of equipment royalty?, (ii) whether a ship can be regarded as “equipment”?, (iii) whether if the ship is used for plying between coastal waters, it can be said to be used for “international traffic”?, (iv) whether the two berths reserved for the ships chartered by the assessee can be said to be a “permanent establishment” of the foreign owner? & (v) whether a person who is treated as an “agent” u/s 163 can also be proceeded against u/s 201 for failure to deduct TDS?

ITAT duty-bound to deal with all judgements cited during hearing

Whenever any decision has been relied upon and/or cited by the assessee and/or any party, the authority/tribunal is bound to consider and/or deal with the same and opine whether in the facts and circumstances of the particular case, the same will be applicable or not. In the instant case, the Tribunal has failed to consider and/or deal with the aforesaid decision cited and relied upon by the assessee. Under the circumstances, all these appeals are required to be remanded to the Tribunal to consider the addition made by the AO towards alleged bogus purchases/sales and to take appropriate decision in accordance with law and on merits and after considering the decision of this Court in the case of CIT vs. President Industries 258 ITR 654.

Non-exclusive & non-transferable license to use customized software not taxable as “royalty” under Article 12 of India-USA DTAA

In order to qualify as a royalty payment under Article 12(3) of the India-USA DTAA, it is necessary to establish that there is a transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of any licence) in respect of a copyright of a literary, artistic or scientific work. There is a clear distinction between royalty paid on transfer of copyright rights and consideration for transfer of copyrighted articles. Right to use a copyrighted article or product with the owner retaining his copyright, is not the same thing as transferring or assigning rights in relation to the copyright. The enjoyment of some or all the rights which the copyright owner has, is necessary to invoke the royalty definition. Viewed from this angle, a non-exclusive and non-transferable licence enabling the use of a copyrighted product cannot be construed as an authority to enjoy any or all of the enumerated rights ingrained in Article 12 of DTAA. Where the purpose of the licence or the transaction is only to restrict use of the copyrighted product for internal business purpose, it would not be legally correct to state that the copyright itself or right to use copyright has been transferred to any extent. The parting of intellectual property rights inherent in and attached to the software product in favour of the licensee/customer is what is contemplated by the Treaty. Merely authorizing or enabling a customer to have the benefit of data or instructions contained therein without any further right to deal with them independently does not, amount to transfer of rights in relation to copyright or conferment of the right of using the copyright. The transfer of rights in or over copyright or the conferment of the right of use of copyright implies that the transferee/licensee should acquire rights either in entirety or partially co-extensive with the owner/ transferor who divests himself of the rights he possesses pro tanto. The license granted to the licensee permitting him to download the computer programme and storing it in the computer for his own use is only incidental to the facility extended to the licensee to make use of the copyrighted product for his internal business purpose. The said process is necessary to make the programme functional and to have access to it and is qualitatively different from the right contemplated by Article 12 because it is only integral to the use of copyrighted product. Apart from such incidental facility, the licensee has no right to deal with the product just as the owner would be in a position to do. Consequently there is no transfer of any right in respect of copyright by the assessee and it is a case of mere transfer of a copyrighted article. The payment is for a copyrighted article and represents the purchase price of an article and cannot be considered as royalty either under the Income-tax Act or under the DTAA (Ericson AB 343 ITR 370 (Del) & Nokia Networks OY 25 taxmann.com 225 followed; Samsung Electronics 345 ITR 494 (Kar) not followed)

S. 45(4) does not apply if the retiring partner takes only money
towards the value of his share and there is no distribution of capital assets among the partners

S. 45(4) deals with a distribution of capital assets on the dissolution of a firm or other AOP or BOI or otherwise and provides that if in the course of such distribution of capital asset there is a transfer of a capital asset by the firm, the firm shall be chargeable to tax on capital gains. In order to attract s. 45(4), the conditions precedent are (1) there should be a distribution of capital assets of a firm; (2) such distribution should result in transfer of a capital asset by firm in favour of the partner; (3) on account of the transfer there should be a profit or gain derived by the firm and (4) such distribution should be on dissolution of the firm or otherwise. In other words, the capital asset of the firm should be transferred in favour of a partner, resulting in firm ceasing to have any interest in the capital asset transferred and the partners should acquire exclusive interest in the capital asset. On facts, the partnership firm purchased the property and it was not in the name of any partner. No partner brought that capital asset as capital contribution into the firm. Also, there was no dissolution of the firm because the firm continued to exist even after the retirement of some partners. What was given to the retiring partners is cash representing the value of their share in the partnership. No capital asset was transferred on the date of retirement. In the absence of distribution of a capital asset and in the absence of transfer of capital asset in favour of the retiring partners, no profit or gain arose in the hands of the partnership firm and so the question of the firm being assessed u/s 45(4) would not arise