SAHASRA ELECTRONICS (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-22(1), NEW DELHI

After hearing the assessee on this aspect and considering the reply of the assessee, learned Assessing Officer recorded that during the Assessment year 2007-08, an addition was made under section 40(a)(i) of the Act on account of commission paid to the two parties abroad namely M/s Cee-Jan Beevers, Belgium and M/s MK group on the ground of the assessee company not complying with the provisions of the withholding tax, but in appeal Ld. CIT(A) had deleted the addition relying on the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of GE India technology Centre private limited vs. CIT 327 ITR 456 (SC), wherein it was held that section 195 of the Act has to be read in conformity with the charging provisions, that is, section 4, 5 and 9 of the Act and that the obligation to deduct TDS arises only when there is a sum chargeable to tax.

Learned Assessing Officer further recorded that for the Assessment year 2009-10, Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 17/1/2013 in Appeal No. 117/11-12 held that the payment relates to management and technical services covered under section 9(l)(vii)

In the alternative, Ld. CIT(A) recorded that even the payments made by the assessee have to be considered as commission expenses, as claimed by the assessee, the same are not allowable as per the discussion of learned Assessing Officer in the remand report wherein he had clearly mentioned that the first commission agent namely MK group LLC, though working in USA but its control is within India as the managing director and sole proprietor of the assessee company, namely, Mr A. Manwani is having 50% stakes in the said company and, therefore, assessee is having control and management of the said commission agent company in India as per section 6(3) of the Act. Similarly in the case of M/s Cee-Jan Bevers, learned Assessing Officer had clearly mentioned that the assessee was having 50% shares in M/s Sahasra Europe BVBA after the completion of two years of agreement and Cee-Jan Bevers was simply a namesake to show that the payments were being made to a non-resident. On this premise, Ld. CIT(A) held that in case of both the commission agents, the control and management was with the assessee as per provisions of Section 6 (3) of Act and, therefore, these agents were residents in India during the year under consideration and the payments made to them were liable for deduction to tax at source, and in such case also learned Assessing Officer was justified in disallowing the commission expense under section 40(a)(i) of the Act.

Ld. AR further submitted that though for the Asstt. Year 2011-12, learned Assessing Officer passed the assessment order similar to that of the order dated 26/6/2014 for assessment year 2007-08, however, for the Assessment Year 2012-13 to Assessment Year 2014-15, the contentions of the assessee were accepted and no disallowance was made in respect of the commission paid to the non-resident sales agents. Ld. AR submits that the fundamental facts for all these assessment years being similar, the conclusions reached by the learned Assessing Officer in the subsequent years to the effect that no technical services are involved in respect of the payments of commission to the non-resident sales agents, and the payments are only towards the commission for sales.

He placed reliance on the decisions reported in CIT vs. EON Technology (P) Ltd (2012) 343 ITR 366 (Delhi); DCIT vs. Divi's laboratories Ltd (2011) 10 ITR (T) 501 (Hyderabad), Ciena Communications India Private Limited vs. ACIT (2018) 98 taxmann.com 458 (Delhi-Trib) in support of his contention that in the absence of the learned Assessing Officer establishing on the basis of relevant material that there is business connection, llearned Assessing Officer is not justified in treating the commission paid to the non-residents for the sales affected outside India, as 'Fee for Technical Services' (FTS).

We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. The services provided by the non-resident sales agents are forwarding enquiry, obtaining quotes, processing purchase orders and payment etc. These services were held to be fee for technical services by the learned Assessing Officer for the assessment Year 2007-08 and upheld by the first appellate authority by following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre Private Limited. In the second appeal, however, a coordinate Bench of this Tribunal thought it fit to remand the matter to the file of the learned Assessing Officer to make enquiries in respect of the existence of the Permanent Establishment (PE) of either or both of these non-resident sales agents.

Subsequent to the remand of the matter relating to the Assessment Year 2007-08 by the Tribunal, learned Assessing Officer did not bring to tax the commission amount on the ground of any 'Fee for Technical Services' (FTS), in such an order learned Assessing Officer did not dispute the contention of the assessee that the two commission agents were not rendering any services of technical/managerial or consultancy nature so as to bring the payment within the mischief of Section 9(l)(vii) of the Act. There is no allegation that either M/s Cee-Jan Beevers or MK group have any Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. Additions were made on a different score. In respect of the addition on the commission paid to M/s Cee-Jan Beevers, learned Assessing Officer recorded a finding that M/s Cee-Jan Beevers is not an independent agency and control and management of M/s Sahasra Europe rest with M/s Sahasra Electronics Private limited, 50% of the commission paid to M/s Cee-Jan Beevers was disallowable on the ground that such 50% should be the income of the Permanent Establishment (PE) in Indian territory. So also in respect of the commission paid to M/s MK group, learned Assessing Officer disallowed the commission in excess of 3% stating that there was no reason or justification for making payment at any rate higher than the minimum commission agreed in the MOU at 3%.

Assessment order for the Assessment year 2010-11 was passed on 15/3/2013, whereas a coordinate Bench of this Tribunal remanded the matter for the assessment year 2007-08 on 6/9/2013. We are in agreement with the Ld. AR that as on the date of passing of the order for the Assessment year 2010-11 by the learned Assessing Officer on 15/3/2013 or the order for the Assessment year 2009-10 by the Ld. CIT(A) on 17/1/2013, Ld.

In EON technology (supra), the assessee was in the business of development and export of software, paid commission to its British parent/holding company, namely, ETUK on the sales and amount is realised on export contracts procured by them. Learned Assessing Officer held that the commission income earned by the ETUK had accrued in India are was deemed to accrue in India and, therefore, the assessee was liable to deduct tax at source there from and as there was failure, the said expenditure should be disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, whereas Ld. CIT(A) while placing reliance on the circular is issued by CBDT No. 23 dated 23/7/1969 and circular No. 786 dated 7/2/2000 deleted the same. Findings of Ld. CIT(A) were upheld by the Tribunal. During further appeal Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court held that where non-resident agent operates outside the country, no part of his income arises in India, and since payment is remitted directly abroad, and merely because an entry in the books of account was made, it does not mean that the non-resident had received any payment in India and in circular No. 786 it was stated that in such cases, the Indian assessee is not liable to deduct the TDS under section 195 of the Act from the commission and other related charges payable to such non-resident having rendered services outside India. On this premise, Hon'ble judicial High Court held that there was no error in the orders of the first and second appellate authorities in deleting the disallowance.

In Divi's laboratories (supra) the assessee paid commission to the foreign agent for the services rendered outside India and the learned Assessing Officer disallowed the said expenditure under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act on the ground that the assessee had not deducted the tax at source on such payment. Assessee contended that the payment was made to foreign agent for services rendered outside India and payments were remitted to the banking channels as per the requirements of the RBI regulations and there was obligation to deduct the tax at source. The first appellate authority accepted the contention of the assessee and deleted the disallowance. In the appeal by the revenue, a Bench of Hyderabad Tribunal after noticing the CBDT circular No. 7, dated 22/10/2009 held that the withdrawal of the earlier circular No. 786, dated 7/2/2000 was of no assistance to the revenue in anyway in disallowing the expenditure and basing on f' '

In Ciena communications (supra), the assessee was providing installation, commissioning services for equipment supplied by its group entities to customers and made several payments to foreign companies, on which no TDS was directed. Learned Assessing Officer made disallowance for non-deduction of TDS under section 195 of the Act read with section 40(a)(i) of the Act on payments so made. A coordinate Bench of this Tribunal held that the payments received by the associated enterprises for the services rendered outside India are not taxable in India and, therefore, the assessee was not expected to deduct TDS and section 195 of the Act has no application. Consequently, it was held that no disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Act was called for.

On application of the settled law to the facts involved in this matter, the irresistible inference that flows is that the commission received by the foreign sales agents is not taxable in India and consequently, the assessee is not under any obligation to deduct TDS, and, therefore, Section 195 has no application to the facts of the case and consequently the disallowance made in this matter cannot be sustained.

Even otherwise, M/s Cee-Jan Beevers is a non-resident Indian and resident of Belgium whereas M/s MK group LLC is a resident of USA. M/s Cee-Jan Beevers is covered by the India Belgium Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement which if read with the protocol dated 26/4/1993 and the Treaty between India and the USA is applicable. So also case of M/s MK group LLC is covered by the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and USA. In either case the payment of commission would not be 'Fee for Technical Services' (FTS) since such services did not "make available" any technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or processes or consists of the development and transfer of technical plan or a technical design.

In the circumstances, as a matter of fact, we find that the services rendered by these two foreign entities are outside India and in respect of the sales effected by them, and at the same time neither of these entities had any permanent establishment in India nor does the assessee or its directors/associated enterprises had any interest in the ownership or management of these entities more particularly M/s Sahasra Europe. We, therefore, allow the grounds of appeal of the assessee.