ALFA LAVAL CORPORATE AB,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INT. TAX) CIRCLE-1, PUNE

We have heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record. Before ascertaining the taxability or otherwise of the amount in question, we need to first appreciate the nature of service rendered by the assessee, which is as under:

It can be seen from the above breakup that a major chunk is towards HR and Marketing Consultancy services. In addition, it also comprises of Employee training expenses and Legal and Professional expenses. The nature of services, as such, has not disputed by the authorities. The moot question is whether the amount received by the assessee for rendering such services falls within the horizon of FTS.

Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii) of the Act, which defines the term ‘fees for technical services’, runs as under :-

From the above definition, it is ostensible that managerial services along with technical and consultancy services are also covered within the ambit of FTS. It is not the case of the assessee that the receipt is not taxable under the Act. The assessee has made out a case that the sum is not chargeable to tax in the hue of the DTAA, which is more beneficial than the provisions of the Act and section 90(1) of the Act permits choosing a more beneficial provision.

Now we proceed to examine if the amount in question also falls within the definition of the ‘fees for included services’ under the DTAA. Relevant part of Article 12 of the DTAA with Sweden is as under :

Para 3(b) of the Article 12 defines the expression ‘fees for technical services’ to mean payment of any kind in consideration for rendering of managerial, technical or consultancy services including the provision of services by technical or other personnel.

A careful circumspection of the relevant part of the definition of the expression ‘fees for included services’ in Article 12 of the DTAA with Portuguese divulges that any consideration, to qualify as fees for included services, must necessarily result into making available technical knowledge, experience or skill etc. to the recipient of the service. The term ‘make available’ has been widely interpreted by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in CIT Vs. De Beers India Minerals Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 346 ITR 467 (Kar.) holding that the payer of the services should be able to utilize the acquired knowledge or know-how at his own in future without the aid of its provider. The Authority for Advance Ruling in Production resources group, in Re (2018) 401 ITR 56 AAR has also held that “make available” connotes something which results in transmitting the technical knowledge so that the recipient could derive an enduring benefit and utilize the same in future on his own without the aid and assistance of the provider. On going through the above judicial interpretation, it becomes palpable that in order to `make available’ technical services, it is sine qua non that the recipient of the services must acquire such technical know- how etc. which he himself can use in future without any assistance of the provider and the same should not be anything which vanishes or disappears with its provision by the payee itself.

Adverting to the facts of the extant case, we find from the nature of services rendered by the assessee that these are primarily pertaining to Human Resources, Marketing Consultancy services and Training services etc. Obviously, managerial services are not part of Article 12(4) of the DTAA between India-Portuguese. As regards the other services, it can be seen that such services are albeit laced with some technical knowledge and lead to their sharing during the training etc., but do not “make available” any technical knowledge, know-how, experience, skill etc. to the Indian entities so as to apply it in future without any aid or assistance from the assessee. The AO has elaborately discussed the nature of services to be mainly as the HR; Marketing Consultancy; and Employee Training and held that such services enabled the employees to upgrade their skills for future use. In our opinion, the conclusion drawn by the AO is not proper because the training simply advances the skill of the recipient-employees but falls short of providing any technical knowledge, experience, skill that enables the employees “to apply the technology contained therein”. As such, we hold that that decision of the AO in treating Rs.38.16 lakh as FTS, is not correct because such consideration does not fall within the purview of FTS under Article 12(4) of the DTAA read with Article 12(4) of the DTAA between India- Portuguese. This addition is directed to be deleted.

The second issue is against the confirmation of addition of Rs.20,84,698/- that the assessee claimed to be reimbursement of expenses.

Succinctly, the factual panorama of this issue is that the assessee received a sum of Rs.20.84 lakh from its two Indian entities and claimed the same as ‘Reimbursement’ of expenses not involving any mark-up over the cost. The AO called upon the assessee to furnish necessary details to establish its case, which the assessee could not, leading to the AO treating the said amount as FTS. Certain additional evidence was filed before the DRP, which was sent to the AO for comments, who again reiterated that the details furnished by the assessee did not satisfy the claim of reimbursement. This resulted in treating Rs.20.84 lakh as FTS thereby swelling the assessee’s income pro tanto.

We have heard the rival sides and gone through the relevant material on record. The splitting-up of Rs.20.84 lakh is as under :-

From the above details, it can be seen that the assessee claimed to have recovered advertising material and brochures cost, corporate travel insurance cost and officer’s conference expenses along with miscellaneous expenses from its Indian Associated Enterprises. The AO has noted that the assessee failed to establish any correlation between the amount reimbursed from the AEs with the expenses incurred by the third parties. In order to fall within the purview of reimbursement, it is sine qua non that primarily, it should be a third party cost incurred by the first person which is recovered, as such, from the other; and, secondly, such recovery should be without any mark-up. If the expenses are incurred by the assessee itself during the course of business and then allocated amongst its entities, these cannot be considered as reimbursement.

Reverting to the factual scenario prevailing in the extant case, we find that though the assessee made out a case of reimbursement but could not successfully prove the same before the AO. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee has got all the relevant documents and can prove the same before the AO. Under the given circumstances, we set-aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the file of the AO for giving one more opportunity to the assessee to prove that sum of Rs.20.84 lakh was in the nature of reimbursement in the terms discussed above. Needless to say, the assessee will be allowed reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The last issue is against treating Rs.64,19,453/- as income chargeable to tax, as against the assessee’s contention of the same being recovery of expatriates’ salary cost.

The assessee claimed that Rs.64.19 lakh was in the nature of recovery of expatriate salary cost and hence, not taxable. It was stated that some employees were deputed to Indian entities, who functioned there and were on their Payroll. It was claimed that for administrative convenience, certain amounts were deposited in the employees’ account, which were recovered from Indian entities as such. Their salary was claimed to have been taxed in entirety in India including the amount under consideration. The AO did not accept the assessee’s contention on the ground that no supporting evidence was produced to demonstrate as to how reimbursement of Rs.64.19 lakh was received from the Indian AE and further that it was offered for taxation by these employees as salary in India. The DRP did not provide any succour to the assessee.

Having heard the rival submissions and gone through the relevant material on record, it is seen that the assessee has canvassed a case that the amount in question was part of the salary of certain expatriates, who were on payroll of the Indian entities and that this amount was recovered from Indian companies without any mark-up. The assessee also contended that this amount was offered to tax in India by such employees.

Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii) provides that FTS includes any consideration for rendering managerial consultancy services etc., but does not include consideration `which would become income of the recipient chargeable under the head “Salaries”’. A perusal of the mandate of the above provision clearly ingrains that any amount paid as a consideration which is income of the recipient chargeable to tax under the head “Salaries”, cannot constitute FTS. Though the assessee has been arguing before the authorities below that the said amount of Rs.64.19 lakh was offered by the employees for taxation in India as their salary, but did not furnish any conclusive evidence to prove the same. It can be seen from the impugned order that the assessee filed certain details of the salaries paid by the employees but did not establish any correlation between the amount under consideration and the amount offered for taxation as `Salary’ by such employees. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that it would be in the fitness of the things if the impugned order on this score is set-aside and the matter is remitted to the file of the AO. We order accordingly and direct him to decide this issue afresh as per law after allowing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 20th July, 2022.