|CORAM:||G. S. Pannu (AM), Pawan Singh (JM)|
|SECTION(S):||9(1)(vii), Article 12, Article 15|
|GENRE:||Domestic Tax, International Tax|
|CATCH WORDS:||Fees for technical services|
|COUNSEL:||Harsh Kapadia, Paras Savla|
|DATE:||May 6, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)|
|DATE:||May 20, 2016 (Date of publication)|
|FILE:||Click here to download the file in pdf format|
|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|
(i) The issue revolves around the payments made by the assessee to certain non-resident entities for professional services rendered by them outside India. It has been consistently explained by the assessee that the services of such entities were availed during the course of the execution of engagements of assessee firm. The assessee firm did not deduct the tax at source and, therefore, the Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Act and disallowed such expenditure. The payments have been made to 12 different professional entities based in 10 different countries. In so far as the payments that are made to KPMG LLP, USA and KPMG LLP, Canada are concerned, the same has been made on account of professional services rendered in relation to taxation and transfer pricing. Undisputedly, the professional services have been rendered by the aforesaid entities outside India. The stand of the Revenue is that such services are in the nature of ‘fee for technical services’ and, therefore, tax was liable to be deducted at source in India. Factually speaking, the aforesaid stand of the Revenue is devoid of any support because there is no material to establish that any technical knowledge, skill, etc. has been made available to the assessee so as to consider it as falling within the purview of Article-12 of Indo-US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. It is also an established fact that such non-resident recipients do not have permanent establishment in India and, therefore, in the said background the same can, at best, be treated as independent personal services covered by Article-15 of the Indo-US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. As a consequence and in the absence of any fixed base in India, such income cannot be held chargeable to tax in India so as to require deduction of tax at source. Therefore, invoking of section 40(a)(i) of the Act to disallow such expenditure is not tenable.
(ii) Apart therefrom, even if we were to accept, for the sake of argument, that the services by the aforesaid entities are in the nature of technical services and are rendered and utilized in India so as to be taxable in terms of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act, even then the disallowance is not warranted as the following discussion would show. 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 (Channel Guide India Ltd. vs. ACIT, 25 taxmann.com 25 (Mum) followed)
There are 2 errors or should I say lapse on the part of the Department in arguing its case. The following questions remain unanswered in the Order of the ITAT “there is no material to establish that any technical knowledge, skill, etc. has been made available to the assessee so as to consider it as falling within the purview of Article-12 of Indo-US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement.” Then what was the payment for? What are the two professional firms exchanging amongst themselves?
The second is “It is also an established fact that such non-resident recipients do not have permanent establishment in India”. Is BSR & Co., not an arm of KPMG in India.
The Tribunal should have at least appeared to be fair and unbiased. Justice should also be seen to be done.