RENAISSANCE SERVICES BV,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (IT) 2(1), MUMBAI

3. In holding that the 'amounts received by the Appellant under the TCSA on account of providing access to the reservation system, property management system and other systems ('Centralized Reservation Facility') to the Indian hotels qualify as 'royalty' under Article 12(4) of the India-Netherlands tax treaty.

4. In stating that merely because the Appellant and another company of the Marriott Group have signed two different agreements with the Indian hotels (ie one for the use of the associated infrastructure of the Appellant and another for the payment of royalty), does not change the true nature of the transaction.

5. In holding that it is a case of splitting of the royalty amount since two different agreements are signed by the Indian hotels with two different companies of the Marriott Group.

1629/Mum/2020 M/s. Renaissance Services BV

6. In holding that the two different agreements were signed by different companies of the Marriott Group to reduce the gross royalty amount earned by the Marriott Group.

7. In not considering that the amounts received by the Appellant under the TCSA are in the nature of business profits as per Article 7 of the India- Netherlands tax treaty and in the absence of a permanent establishment in India as per Article 5 of the India-Netherlands tax treaty, the same cannot be taxed in the hands of the Appellant. 8. In placing reliance on the decision of the Mumbai Tribunal in case of Marriott International Inc vs Deputy Director of Income-tax (International Taxation) - 4(1) [(2016)69 taxmann.com 347] and thereby, treating the amounts received by the Appellant for providing Centralized Reservation Facility under the TCSA to the Indian hotels in the nature of 'royalty' under Article 12(4) of the India-Netherlands tax treaty.

Indian Hotels Training and Computer Reservation Receipts (in Rs.) Chalet Hotels Limited, Mumbai 2,268.272 Viceroy Hotels Limited, Hyderabad 6,965,793 Total 92,34,065 3.1. The ld. AO show-caused the assessee to explain as to why the amount received for training and computer systems should not be treated as its income. The assessee gave a detailed reply in response to show- cause notice. The ld. AO treated the income received by the assessee from training services to be taxable as fee for technical services (FTS) u/s.9(1)(vi) of the Act and also under Article 12 of the Indo- Netherlands Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). In respect of payments received by the assessee on account of computer reservation systems, the ld. AO held that the same would be covered under the provisions of Article 12(4) r.w. Article 12(5)(a) of the Indo-Netherlands DTAA and also taxable u/s.9(1)(vii) of the Act. Accordingly, the ld. AO determined the income of the assessee at Rs.92,34,065/- as income earned from Indian operations. On first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) enhanced the taxable income to Rs.4,59,71,208/- and directed the ld. AO to verify and take the correct turnover of the assessee.

3.2. At the outset, the ld. AR stated that this issue is covered by the order of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Yrs. 2009-10, 2011-12 and 2012-13. The relevant operative portion of the order of this Tribunal

1629/Mum/2020 M/s. Renaissance Services BV for A.Y.2009-10 in assessee’s own case reported in 171 ITD 381 is reproduced hereunder:-

“10. We shall now advert to the claim of the assessee that the consideration received for conducting training programs had wrongly been held by the CIT (A) as FTS in its hands. The assessee had assailed the observations of the CIT (A), viz. (i) the training programs conducted by the assesses did "make available" technical knowledge; and (ii) that as the conducting of training programs by the assessee was "ancillary and subsidiary" to the royalty agreement, hence the consideration received therefrom was liable to be assessed as FTS under Article 12(5)(a) of the India-Netherland tax treaty. We find that as per the agreement entered into between the assessee and the Indian Hotels the assessee was to provide (i) certain core-training programs for management level personnel; and (ii) other training for other employees of the above referred Indian Hotels. However, during the year under consideration the assessee had only provided certain core-training programs for management level personnel. We are of the considered view that the claim of the assessee before the lower authorities that as the training services provided to the management level personnel were in the nature of general managerial/leadership training and the same did neither involve 'make available' or transfer of any technology to the personnel, had neither been dislodged before the lower authorities, nor anything has been placed on record before us by the ld. D.R, which could persuade us to hold otherwise. We find ourselves to be in agreement with the view taken by the ITAT, Bangalore in the case of Veeda Clinic Research (P.) Ltd. (supra), that in order to successfully invoke the coverage of training fees by 'make available' clause in the definition of technical services, the onus is on the revenue authorities to demonstrate that the services do involve transfer of technology. We have further perused the case laws relied upon by the ld. A.R to impress upon us to return a finding that the consideration received by the assessee from providing training services being in the nature of managerial/leadership training, thus could not have been assessed as FTS in the hands of the assessee, as under: (i) Llyods Register Industrial Services (India) P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2010) 36 SOT 293 (Mum): The Tribunal observed that the expenses incurred by the assessee which was engaged in the business of survey of ships, on the training of its employees who would inspect various mechanical and electrical equipments in the ship and ultimately issued a fitness certificate, could not be held as payments made for technical services. The Tribunal while concluding as hereinabove, observed that the employees by taking training from the Principal company had acquired only inputs to enable them to perform their work with desired state of efficiency. (ii) Ershisanye Construction Group India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (2017) 84 taxmann.com 108 (Kol):

1629/Mum/2020 M/s. Renaissance Services BV The Tribunal had observed that payments which were made by a Chinese company in respect of training of Chinese engineers of the assessee in english language would not constitute FTS. (iii) ACIT v. PCI Ltd. (2011) 12 taxmann.com 59 (Delhi): The High Court observed that payments made by the assessee to a non-resident party for training its personnel or customers to explain to the proposed buyers the salient features of the products imported by the assessee in India and to impart training to the customers to use the equipments cannot be held to be FTS. (iv) ITO v. Veeda Clinic Research P. Ltd. (2011) 13 taxmann.com21 (Bang): Where training services to the employees of the assessee company was general in nature, not involving any transfer of technology, the fees for providing such services was not taxable as FTS as per Article 13 of India-U.K tax treaty. (v) Wockhardt Ltd. v. ACIT (2011) 10 taxmann.com 208 (Mum): The services rendered by the employees of a non-resident company being in the nature of sharing management experiences and business strategies could not be termed as technical services. We have deliberated at length on the aforesaid judicial pronouncements in the backdrop of the facts involved in the case of the assessee before us, and are of the considered view that the consideration received by the assessee for the managerial/leadership training provided to the employees of the Indian Hotels cannot be held as FTS.

11. We have further deliberated on the reliance placed by the CIT (A) on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oberoi Hotels (India) (P.) Ltd., (supra) wherein it was observed that 'technical services' included 'professional services'. Still further, we find that the A.O also had relied on certain judgments/orders,viz. (i) Intertek Testing Services (supra); (ii) G.V.K Industries (supra); (iii) Continental Construction Ltd. (supra); (iv) Oberoi Hotels (India) (P.) Ltd. (supra); and (v) Dr. Sudhir Kumar Solanki (supra), to support his view that 'technical services' included 'professional services'. We find substantial force in the contention of the ld. A.R that in case training services rendered by the assessee to the Indian Hotels were to be construed as professional services, than the same would fall within the sweep of Article 14 of the India-Netherland tax treaty, which exclusively pertained to "Independent Personal Services" and would automatically be excluded from Article 12 dealing with "Fees for technical services". Still further, a perusal of Article 14 reveals that the same could be assessed in the contracting state i.e India, subject to satisfaction by the assessee of either of the two conditions therein provided, viz. (a) fixed base for performing of the professional activities in the contracting state; or (b) stay for a period or periods exceeding 183 days in the fiscal year.

1629/Mum/2020 M/s. Renaissance Services BV

12. We shall now advert to the observations of the CIT (A) that as the Training and Computer systems agreements (for short 'TCSA') entered into by the assessee with the Indian Hotels, viz. M/s Viceroy Hotels Ltd., Hyderabad and M/s Chalet Hotels Ltd., Mumbai were an integral part of the licensing/royalty agreement, thus both the agreements were complementary to each other. The CIT (A) was of the view that as the training services rendered by the assessee were "ancillary and subsidiary" to the enjoyment of the rights, property or information pursuant to the royalty agreement, thus the consideration received by the assessee from rendering such services could safely be held as FTS as per Article 12(5)(a) of the India-Netherland tax treaty. We have deliberated at length on Article 12(5)(a) of the tax treaty, which reads as under: 'Article 12(5): For the purposes of this Article, "fees for technical services" means payment of any kind to any person in consideration for the rendering of any technical or consultancy services (including through the provision of services of 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 4 of this Article is receives; or' We find that for invoking Article 12(5)(a) and holding the consideration received by an assessee from certain "ancillary and subsidiary" technical or consultancy services rendered for the application or enjoyment of the right, property or information as FTS, presupposes receipt by the assessee of a consideration towards royalty as provided in Article 12(4) of the tax treaty. We are of the considered view that as the assessee was not the owner of any brand or trademark for which any royalty would have been received by it under Article 12(4) of the India-Netherland tax treaty, hence the services provided to the Indian Hotels were in the ordinary course of its business, and could not be brought within the sweep of "ancillary and subsidiary" services as provided in Article 12(5)(a) of the India-Netherland tax treaty. We thus, are of a strong conviction that the CIT (A) loosing sight of the fact that as the assessee was not in receipt of any royalty as per Article 12(4) of the India- Netherland tax treaty, hence had failed to appreciate that the training services rendered by it could not have been held to be "ancillary and subsidiary" services under Article 12(5)(a) We thus, are of the view that the consideration received by the assessee for providing training services to the Indian Hotels could not be held as FTS under Article 12(5)(a) of the India-Netherland tax treaty. We are of the considered view that in terms of our aforesaid observations, as neither the training services rendered by the assessee to the Indian Hotels could be held to be technical services, nor the same could have been characterised as "ancillary and subsidiary" services as per Article 12(5)(a), hence the consideration received by the assessee for rendering the training services could not be held as FTS in its hands. We thus, not being persuaded to subscribe to the view taken by the CIT (A) that the consideration received for providing training services to the Indian Hotels was chargeable as FTS in the hands of the assessee, set aside his order. The Ground of appeal No. 2 is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations.

1629/Mum/2020 M/s. Renaissance Services BV

3.3. In respect of computer systems wherein the ld. AO had treated the income received thereon as “Royalty” in A.Y.2009-10, the Tribunal in A.Y.2009-10 reported in 171 ITD 381 held as under:-

“13. We shall now advert to the assailing of the order of the CIT (A) by the assessee, on the ground that he had erred in holding that the amounts received by the assessee for providing access to the international CRS, Property Management Systems and Other Systems was ancillary and subsidiary to the enjoyment of the right "Marriott" and hence, taxable as FTS under the India-Netherland tax treaty, as well as under the Act. We find that since inception, it has been the claim of the assessee that as the providing of access to CRS, Property Management Systems and Other Systems to the Indian Hotels, were standard facilities/services, thus they could not be characterised as 'technical services' and the consideration received in lieu thereof be subjected to tax as FTS receipts. We find from a perusal of the agreement entered into between the assessee and the Indian Hotels that the assessee had made available the CRS, Property Management Systems and Other Systems for use by the Indian Hotels in their business. We find that the ld. A.R in support of his contention that the consideration received by an assessee for granting license to use its copyrighted software for the licensees own business purpose only, could not be brought to tax as royalty, had relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of DIT v. Infrasoft Ltd. [2013] 39 taxmann.com 88/[2014] 220 Taxman 273 (Delhi) and host of other judicial pronouncements. However, as the CIT (A) had concluded that the consideration received by the assessee from the Indian Hotels for providing access to CRS, Property Management Systems and Other Systems was FTS in the hands of the assessee, hence we refrain from referring to and dealing with the contentions advanced by the ld. A.R in support of his claim that the same could not be held as royalty. We find that the High Court of Delhi in the case of Sheraton International Inc. (supra) had observed that consideration received by the assessee for providing access to reservation system could not be brought to tax as FTS in the hands of the assessee. We further find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kotak Securities Ltd. (supra) had in the backdrop of the facts involved in the case before it, had observed that services made available by Bombay Stock Exchange [BSE Online Trading (BOLT) System] for which transaction charges were paid by members of BSE were for common services that every member of Stock Exchange was necessarily required to avail of to carry out trading in securities in Stock Exchange, thus such services did not amount to 'technical services' provided by Stock Exchange, as the same were not services which were specifically sought for by the user or consumer. The Hon'ble Apex Court following the aforesaid view, had thereafter observed in the case of A.P Moller Maersk A S (supra), that where the assessee, a foreign shipping company had set up a telecommunication system in order to enable its agents across globe including India to perform their role more effectively, the payment received for providing such facility was not taxable as fee for 1629/Mum/2020 M/s. Renaissance Services BV technical services. We have perused the facts of the case before us and after deliberating on the same in the backdrop of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements are of the considered view that as the access to CRS, Property Management System and Other Systems provided to the Indian Hotels by the assessee were common facilities provided to the members of the Marriott chain of hotels across the world by the assessee, and were not tailor made services to suit their specific requirements, thus the said facility could not be construed as 'technical services'.

14. We shall now advert to the observations of the CIT (A) that as the consideration received by the assessee on account of providing access to CRS, Property Management Systems and Other Systems facility was ancillary and subsidiary to the enjoyment of the right to use the brand "Marriott", thus the same would be taxable as FTS under Article 12(5)(a) of the India-Netherlands tax treaty. We are of the considered view that as observed by us hereinabove, invoking of Article 12(5)(a) and holding the consideration received by an assessee from certain "ancillary and subsidiary" technical or consultancy services rendered for the application or enjoyment of the right, property or information as FTS, itself presupposes receipt by the assessee of a consideration towards royalty as provided in Article 12(4) of the tax treaty. We are of the considered view that now when the assessee was not the owner of any brand or trademark for which any royalty would have been received by it under Article 12(4) of the India-Netherland tax treaty, hence the services of providing access to CRS, Property Management System and Other Systems to the Indian Hotels were provided by it in the ordinary course of its business and could not be brought within the sweep of "ancillary and subsidiary" services under Article 12(5)(a) of the tax treaty. We thus, are of a strong conviction that the CIT (A) loosing sight of the fact that as the assessee had neither granted any right of enjoyment of the brand "Marriott" to the Indian Hotels and thus was not in receipt of any royalty as provided in Article 12(4) of the India-Netherland tax treaty, thus the consideration received by it from the Indian Hotels for providing access to CRS, Property Management System and Other Systems, could not have been brought within the sweep of "ancillary and subsidiary" services under Article 12(5)(a). We thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations are of the considered view that as providing of access to CRS, Property Management Services and Other services could neither be held to be technical services, nor the same in terms of our aforesaid observations could have been characterised as "ancillary and subsidiary" services under Article 12(5)(a), hence the consideration received by the assessee for rendering the said services/facility could not be held as FTS in its hands. We thus, set aside the order of the CIT (A) holding that the consideration received by the assessee for providing of access to CRS, Property Management Services and Other Systems was chargeable as FTS in the hands of the assessee. The Ground of appeal No. 3 is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations.

3.4. As far as the treatment of the income received from computer reservation systems as “Royalty”, this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for 1629/Mum/2020 M/s. Renaissance Services BV A.Yrs 2011-12 and 2012-13 in and ITA No.764/Mum/2017 dated 09/08/2019 respectively had held as under:-

1629/Mum/2020 M/s. Renaissance Services BV in its order for assessment year 2009-10. Where further noted that the the revenue has not filed appeal against the claim of assessing officer for assessment year 2009-10 that the payments access to computer system qualify as royalty, when CIT appeal said concluded that the same qualifies as FTS. In our view the tribunal had refrain from dealing with the contention of the assessee that payment received or access to computer system could not be treated in the nature of royalty. However, during the year under consideration i.e. assessment year 2011-12, the assessing officer concluded that payment received for access to computer system qualifies as software royalty, however the learned CIT(A) concluded that such payments qualifies as brand royalty. The case of assessee throughout the proceeding either before assessing officer, landed Commissioner (appeals) as well as before the tribunal that the said receipt cannot qualify as software royalty as the amount is received to RSS to computer software/system to a copyrighted article and there is no transfer of copyright or use of copyright itself and hence cannot be taxed as royalty. Centralized regeneration system, property management system and other systems are standard facilities. In our view in order to create the consideration received by assessee as royalty, it is to be established that the payer by making such payment, obtains any of the copyrights of such work. Further, while dealing such issue, the distance and has to be made between the acquisition of a copyright right and a copyrighted article. In our view, in the present case, the copyright has not been transferred, rather the assessee has allowed to use standard services to the Hotel owners, which does not give rise to any royalty income, but in estate would be in the nature of business income. 22.The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in DIT vs. Infrasoft Ltd. (supra) also held that when they right transfer is not the right to use the copyright but it is limited to right to use the copyrighted material and the same does not give rise to Royalty Income and would be business income. It was also held that consideration received by assessee on grant of licence for use of software is not Royalty within the meaning of Article 12(13) of India-US Tax Treaty. The decision relied by ld. DR in Samsung Electronics (supra) has been distinguished by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in DIT vs. Infrasoft Ltd. (supra). The relevant part of decision of Hon'ble Delhi Court is extracted below: "98. We are not in agreement with the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd (supra) that right to make a copy of the software and storing the same in the hard disk of the designated computer and taking backup copy would amount to copyright work under section 14(1) of the Copyright Act and the payment made for the grant of the licence for the said purpose would constitute royalty. The license granted to the licensee permitting him to download the computer programme and storing it in the computer for his own use was only incidental to the facility extended to the licensee to make use of the copyrighted product for his internal business purpose. The said process was necessary to make the programme functional and to have access to it and is qualitatively different from the right contemplated by the said provision because it is only integral to the use of copyrighted product. The right to make a backup copy purely as a temporary protection against loss,

1629/Mum/2020 M/s. Renaissance Services BV destruction or damage has been held by the Delhi High Court in Nokia Networks OY (supra) as not amounting to acquiring a copyright in the software."

1629/Mum/2020 M/s. Renaissance Services BV ITR 186 (SC), that where the assessee, a foreign shipping company had set up a telecommunication system in order to enable its agents across globe including India to perform their role more effectively, the payment received for providing such facility was not taxable as fee for technical services. We have perused the facts of the case before us and after deliberating on the same in the backdrop of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements are of the considered view that as the access to CRS, Property Management System and Other Systems provided to the Indian Hotels by the assessee were common facilities provided to the members of the Marriott chain of hotels across the world by the assessee, and were not tailor made services to suit their specific requirements, thus the said facility could not be construed as 'technical services'.

FTS in the hands of the assessee. The Ground of appeal

No. 3 is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations."

27. Considering the decision of Tribunal in assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2009-10 on similar set of fact, and our aforesaid detailed discussions on the issues, these grounds of appeal are allowed in favour of assessee.

3.5. It is not in dispute that the facts prevailing in A.Yrs. 2009-10, 2011-12 and 2012-13 are identical with the facts prevailing in A.Y. 2010-11 as they form part of the same agreement and same nature of activities carried out by the assessee. Hence, we hold that the decision rendered by this Tribunal for A.Yrs. 2009-10, 2011-12 and 2012-13 as detailed supra shall apply mutatis mutandis to A.Y.2010-11 also. Accordingly, the ground Nos. 1-3 raised by the assessee are allowed.

6.1. The facts relevant for this adjudication of this additional ground are already on record before the lower authorities and hence, this additional

1629/Mum/2020 M/s. Renaissance Services BV ground raised by the assessee is hereby admitted and the ld. AO is hereby directed to grant correct TDS credit in accordance with law. Accordingly, the ground No.10 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

1629/Mum/2020 M/s. Renaissance Services BV

“Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellant respectfully submits that the learned Commis`sioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 58, Mumbai, has in his order dated July 24, 2019 under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act') erred in disposing the appeal of the Appellant on the following grounds , which are without prejudice to one another:

1. In taxing the receipts earned by the Appellant pursuant to the Training and Computer Systems Agreement ('TCSA') despite of the favorable orders passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai ("ITAT) in the Appellant's own case" for AYs 2009-10, 2011-12 and 2012-13 wherein the ITAT held that the receipts are not taxable in India;

2. In holding that the receipts earned by the Appellant pursuant to the TCSA entered with the Indian hotel owners are taxable in India under the Act as well as under the India-Netherlands tax treaty;

3. In not accepting the claim of non-taxability of amounts received for conducting training programs for the employees of the Indian hotel owners; and 4. In not considering that the amounts received by the Appellant under the TCSA could at best be considered to be in the nature of business profits as per Article 7 of the India-Netherlands tax treaty and in the absence of a permanent establishment in India as per Article 5 of the India-Netherlands tax treaty, the same cannot be taxed in the hands of the Appellant. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend any of the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at, the time of appeal, so as to enable the Honourable Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to decide this appeal according to law. Tax effect:

1629/Mum/2020 M/s. Renaissance Services BV

The tax effect arising on account of grounds of 1 to 4 is Rs 2,00,58,377. The Appellant has not provided tax effect for each of these grounds separately, since grounds 1 to 4 are in relation to a single addition of Rs 2,00,58,377. We request you to kindly take the appeal on record.”

11.1. The aforesaid grounds have already been adjudicated by this Tribunal in A.Y.2010-11 supra wherein it was held that amounts received by the assessee towards training and computer systems agreement and not taxable in India both under the Act as well as under Indo-Netherlands treaty. But there is a small change on facts during the year under consideration. We find that in A.Y.2014-15, the assessee itself had offered receipts from training services as FTS on the basis of earlier year assessment orders. This was sought to be reversed by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings which was denied. The ld. CIT(A) also did not agree to this contention of the assessee. In fact the assessee had raised an additional ground before the ld. CIT(A) on this count. We find that the ld. CIT(A) had denied admission of the additional ground raised by him. We find that the ld. CIT(A) had rejected the admission of additional ground raised by the assessee seeking reduction of income from training services from taxable income, on the ground that assessee had not made this claim in the return of income. The ld. CIT(A) in this regard had placed in the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ultratech Cements Ltd., vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 2(2) in Income Tax Appeal No.1060 of 2014 dated 18/04/2017 in support of his decision of refusing to admit additional ground.

1629/Mum/2020 M/s. Renaissance Services BV that the said receipts are not taxable in India either as FTS or as royalty as per the Act and as per Indo-Netherlands treaty. Merely because the assessee had offered income from training services to tax in the return of income for the A.Y.2014-15 (i.e. the year under consideration), the assessee should not be unjustly taxed on a receipt which is otherwise not chargeable to tax both as per the Act and as per the treaty. We find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd., reported in 284 ITR 323 had held that any claim of the assessee could be made only by way of a valid return. In the instant case, the assessee could not file a revised return within the time prescribed under the Act. It is a fact that assessee had offered the income while filing its return for A.Y.2014-15. Thereafter, during the course of assessment proceedings, in view of the subsequent development that had cropped up in assessee’s own case wherein the Tribunal for A.Y.2009-10 had taken a decision in favour of the assessee on the very same taxability of receipts from training services, the assessee made a claim before the ld. AO that the said receipt should not be taxed in the hands of the assessee. We find that the decision of Goetze India categorically states in the final paragraph that the restriction of entertaining a claim otherwise than by way of valid return shall not apply to appellate authorities. Hence, we hold that the ld. CIT(A) ought to have entertained the said claim of the assessee. In any case, there is no estoppel against the statute and law is very well settled on the same. As on date, this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Yrs 2009-10, 2011-12 and 2011-12 had categorically held that receipts from training services are not taxable in the hands of the assessee either as FTS as per Act as well as under the Indo-Netherlands treaty. The decision relied upon by the ld. CIT(A) on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ultratech Cement does not apply to the facts of the instant case in view of the fact that in the case before

1629/Mum/2020 M/s. Renaissance Services BV the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, the assessee raised an additional ground for claiming deduction u/s.80 IA of the Act before the Tribunal for the first time when no claim was made before the lower authorities. In that case the facts relevant for adjudication of the claim of deduction u/s.80IA of the Act were not available on record before the lower authorities. Hence, the Tribunal had rejected the claim of admission of additional ground in the case of Ultratech, which was upheld by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court. In the instant case, the entire facts relevant for taxability of receipts from training services are already on record which have already been culled out by the ld. AO in pages 2 & 3 of the assessment order. In these circumstances, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have admitted the additional ground raised by the assessee, even though it results in assessed income below the returned income. Hence, we hold that income from training services should not be brought to tax in the hands of the assessee in A.Y.2014-15. Even though this would result in a situation where it would go below the returned income, still the assessee would be entitled for the relief. Reliance in this regard is made on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat Gas Limited vs. JCIT reported in 245 ITR 84 and Milton Laminates Ltd., vs. CIT reported in 37. Taxmann.com 249 (Hon’ble Gujarat High Court).

12.1. On merits, the ld. DR also pointed out that during the year, the ld. AO treated the receipts from computer reservation system as equipment royalty which was not decided by the Tribunal in earlier years and accordingly he argued that the decision of the Tribunal in earlier years would not be applicable for this assessment year. Per contra, the ld. AR argued that the term “equipment” referred to by the ld. AO only means “server”. The very same server was available in earlier years also for rendering the computer reservation system services by the assessee.

1629/Mum/2020 M/s. Renaissance Services BV Hence, there is absolutely no change in the facts. We also find that servers are owned and used by the assessee and not by the Indian entity. The servers are not given on rent to Indian Hotels. Hence, we are in agreement with the argument advanced by the ld. AR in this regard and hold that the year under consideration is no way factually different from earlier years and hence, the decision rendered by this Tribunal in A.Y.2010-11 supra shall apply mutatis mutandis to this assessment year also.

12.2. In view of the aforesaid observations, we hold that receipts of the assessee from training services and computer reservation system services shall not be chargeable to tax both under the Act as well as under the treaty. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.

Order pronounced on 24/02/2022 by way of proper mentioning in the notice board.