DCIT (IT) 3(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. MWH CONSULTANTS (S) PTE. LTD, MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the tax effect, calculated as 10% of the fees for technical services as per the DTAA, was below ₹50 Lakhs. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed the DRP's order regarding the classification of services and taxability of fees for technical services under the India-Singapore DTAA. The assessee argued that the tax effect was below the threshold for appealability as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019.
What were the issues?
Whether the appeal is maintainable given the low tax effect as per CBDT circulars, and the classification of services as 'fees for technical services' under the India-Singapore DTAA.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(4)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Sunil v. Motiani v. ITO (International Taxation)39 citing33 Taxmann.com 252 · 2013 · ITAT
- Parke Davis & Company LLC v. Asstt. CIT23 citing41 Taxmann.com 193 · 2014 · ITAT
- Soregam SA v. DCIT19 citing101 Taxmann.com 94 · 2019 · HC
- RAK Ceramics UAE v. DCIT International Taxation (2), Hyderabad7 citing104 Taxmann.com 380 · 2019 · ITAT
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “I”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON’BLE & SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE
Date of hearing : 21.11.2019 Date of pronouncement : 07.02.2020 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Dispute Resolution Panel-3, Mumbai [hereinafter in short “DRP’] dated 29.12.2015 passed u/s. 144C(5) of the Act.
Revenue has raised the following grounds in its appeal: - “1. "Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. DRP is justified in holding that services rendered by the (A.Y: 2012-13) MWH Consultants (S) PTE Ltd assessee company are broadly in the nature of "Managerial Services" which are not covered within the scope of definition of the term "Fee for Technical Services" as per Article-12.4 of India- Singapore DTAA," 2. "Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law and in continuation of (1) above, the services rendered by the assessee company do not make available any technical knowledge as held by DRP despite detailed analysis and observation of the assessing officer in the order of assessment under consideration.
3. The Appellant prays that the order of the Ld. DRP on the above ground(s) be set aside and that of the Assessing officer be restored.
4. The Appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary.”
At the time of hearing, Ld. Senior Counsel for the assessee submitted that tax effect on the issue in the present appeal is below ₹ 50 Lacs and in view of the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 in F.No.279/Misc.142/2007-ITJ (Pt), the appeal of the Revenue is not maintainable. In the course of the hearing, Ld. Senior Counsel for the assessee furnished the calculation of tax effect which is as under: - Sr.NO. Particulars Amount in ₹. Amount in ₹. 1. Fees for technical services 4,84,44,048/- Total in IINR 4,84,44,048/- Tax on amounts disputed @ 10% as per 48,44,405/- Article 12 of the India - Singapore DTAA Add: Surcharge @ Nil * - Add: Education cess @ Nil * - Tax effect 48,44,405/- *No surcharge and education cess is leviable to tax rates as per the DTAA - reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions:
Referring to the said calculation, Ld. Senior counsel submitted that the tax effect in this case is work out at ₹.48,44,405/- being 10% of tax on (A.Y: 2012-13) MWH Consultants (S) PTE Ltd fees for technical services and this tax rate is applied as per Article 12 of the DTAA between India and Singapore. Ld. Senior Counsel for the assessee submitted that surcharge and education cess are not applicable in the case of the assessee as the tax rate was applied as per DTAA. In support of his contentions he placed reliance on the following decisions: - a. Soregam SA v. DDIT [101 taxmann.com 94 (Delhi-Trib)] b. R.A.K. Ceremics, UAE v. DDIT [104 taxmann.com 380 (Hyd-Trib)] c. Parke Davis and Company LLC v. ACIT [41 taxmann.com 193 (Mum-Trib)] d. Sunil V. Motiani v. ITO [33 taxmann.com 252 (Mum-Trib)]
Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that in this case if the surcharge and education cess are not included the tax effect is coming to ₹.48,44,405/-.
We have heard the submissions and perused the grounds of appeal in this appeal. In this case the DRP in its order has observed that in terms of provisions of section 115A of the Act and also in terms of Article 12 of the India – Singapore DTAA, the rate of tax for “fees for technical services” is 10%. Accordingly, considering the provisions of section 115A, the DRP directed the Assessing Officer to apply the rate of tax as per the provisions of section 115A of the Act. We also observed that in the decisions relied on by the assessee it has been held that when the tax rate is applied as per the DTAA provisions, such tax rate as specified in DTAA provisions is inclusive of surcharge and education cess. Therefore, applying the rate
(A.Y: 2012-13) MWH Consultants (S) PTE Ltd as per DTAA in this case at the rate of 10% for the fees for technical services, the tax payable excluding surcharge and education cess works out to ₹.48,44,405/- which is below ₹.50,00,000/-. Thus, since the tax effect in this appeal is less than ₹.50 Lakhs the appeal of the Revenue is not maintainable on account of low tax effect in view of the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019. Hence this appeal is dismissed.
In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Order Pronounced in the Open Court on the 07th February, 2020
More judgments on Section 115A
- M/S American Express Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs The Jt DIT (It)1(1), MumbaiITA 9414/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2000-2001
- DDIT(It)- 1(1), Mumbai vs M/S. American Express Bank Ltd., MumbaiITA 5667/MUM/2004[2000-01]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2000-01
- Star Rising Aviation 13 Limited, Ireland vs Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax…ITA 1733/MUM/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2023-24
- Ascendas Property Fund (Fdi) Pte Limited… vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax…ITITA 211/DEL/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
- Ascendas Property Fund (Fdi) Pte Limited… vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax…ITITA 210/DEL/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Kamlasana Impex Private Limited vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence (Hq) Delhi) & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Ritu Gautam Proprietor Of Ms Heritage International vs. Additional Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026