THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S TURBO ENERGY PVT LTD

PDF · subscribers
TCA/193/2020HC Madras01 October 2024Bench: Honourable Mr Justice R. SURESH KUMAR4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court did not adjudicate on the substantial questions of law. The Revenue's counsel informed the Court that the tax effect in these appeals was below the prescribed monetary limit. Based on this submission, the Court dismissed the Tax Case Appeals for low tax effect. The Court explicitly stated that the substantial questions of law were kept open for adjudication at an appropriate stage. Therefore, there was no finding on whether the payments to M/s. Sonima Logistic were technical/managerial services, whether Section 9(1)(vii) was applicable, or whether the losses on forward contracts were allowable. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeals, with no costs. The connected miscellaneous petition was also closed.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Revenue) filed two Tax Case Appeals (TCA Nos. 193 and 194 of 2020) before the High Court of Judicature at Madras, challenging an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai, dated July 17, 2020. The appeals concerned assessment years not specified in the judgment. The ITAT's order was in favor of the assessee, M/s. Turbo Energy Pvt Ltd. The Revenue's appeals were admitted on substantial questions of law. However, during the proceedings, the Revenue's counsel submitted that the tax effect in these cases was below the monetary limit prescribed for appeals. Consequently, the Revenue requested the appeals to be disposed of without a decision on the merits of the substantial questions of law.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide four substantial questions of law. The first question concerned whether payments made to M/s. Sonima Logistic, Germany, constituted managerial/technical services, necessitating Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) under Section 195 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, or if they were merely for warehousing. The second question was whether the Tribunal erred in not considering Section 9(1)(vii) for payments for managerial services rendered outside India, which should be treated as fees for technical services liable for TDS, and if non-deduction attracted Section 40(a)(i). The third question, specific to TCA No. 193 of 2020, was whether a loss of Rs. 162,43,545/- on forward contract cancellations should be allowed, given that these contracts were for hedging foreign exchange fluctuations and were independent of the assessee's regular business transactions. The fourth question was whether the Tribunal's finding that foreign exchange loss due to restatement of forward contracts, not transacted through a regular stock exchange, was an allowable loss, was proper and in line with Section 43(5) of the Act. The Revenue argued that the payments were for technical/managerial services and hedging contracts were not part of regular business. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the assessee on these points.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 9(1)(vii),Section 195,Section 40(a)(i),Section 43(5)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

T.C.A.Nos.193 and 194 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 01.10.2024 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN Tax Case Appeal Nos.193 and 194 of 2020 and CMP No.7876 of 2020 The Commissioner of Income Tax IV Chennai 600 034. ... Appellant in both appeals Vs. M/s.Turbo Energy Pvt Ltd No.67, Chamiers Road R.A.Puram, Chennai 600 028. ... Respondent in both appeals ----- Tax Case Appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, dated 17.07.2020 made in ITA Nos.310 and 313 of 2018. For Appellant : Mrs.V.Pushpa Senior Standing Counsel For Respondents : Mr.R.Venkatanarayanan for M/s.Subbaraya Iyer Padmanabhan 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.Nos.193 and 194 of 2020 J U D G M E N T (Delivered by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.) These Tax Case Appeals have been filed by the Revenue calling in question the correctness of the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai and the appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: “Common questions in TCA.Nos.193 & 194 of 2020 : i. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the payments made to M/s.Sonima Logistic, Germany would not come within the purview of managerial/technical services and therefore, no TDS was needed to be deducted even though the said concern was providing composite services and not merely offering warehousing facility ? ii. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in not considering Section 9(1)(vii) on payments made for the purpose of rendering managerial services outside India, which is to be considered only as payments made for fees for technical services and therefore liable for TDS under Section 195 of the Income Tax Act and non deduction of the same renders invoking of Section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act ? 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.Nos.193 and 194 of 2020 Other Questions in TCA No.193 of 2020 : iii. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that loss on account of forward contract cancellations amounting to Rs.162,43,545/- is to be allowed especially when hedging forward contracts on foreign exchange fluctuation are not receivables or payables in respect of regular business transactions but are received on account of hedging contracts entered which are totally independent from the assessee's regular business ? And iv. Whether the reasoning and findings of the Tribunal are proper, especially when foreign exchange loss due to restatement of forward contracts entered into by the assessee are not transacted through regular stock exchange is an allowable loss which is contrary to the provisions of Section 43(5) of the Income Tax Act? ” 2. It is brought to our notice by the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant Revenue that in the instant cases, the tax effect is said to be less than the monetary limit imposed and therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue can be disposed of, keeping the substantial questions of law raised in these appeals open for adjudication at a later point of time. 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.Nos.193 and 194 of 2020 R.SURESH KUMAR, J. AND C.SARAVANAN, J. KST 3. Recording the said submission, these Tax Case Appeals are dismissed for low tax effect, keeping open the substantial questions of law for adjudication at appropriate stage. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (R.S.K.,J.) (C.S.N.,J.) 01.10.2024 NCS : Yes/No Index : Yes/No KST To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai T.C.A.Nos.193 & 194 of 2020 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

More judgments on Section 9(1)(vii)

All 1,640 judgments and leading authorities on Section 9(1)(vii) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →