Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, [ DELHI BENCH “D” : DELHI ]
Before: SHRI G. S. PANNU, HON’BLE VICE-SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD
I.T.A. No. 9110/Del/2019
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH “D” : DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI G. S. PANNU, HON’BLE VICE-PRESIDENT A N D SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.9110/Del/2019 िनधा�रणवष�/Assessment Years: 2016-17 Cameron (Singapore) Pte Ltd., ACIT, बनाम C/o. Cameron Manufacturing Vs. (India) Pvt. Ltd., Circle Int. Tax: 1(2)(1) III Floor, Tidel park, Vilankurichi Road, Civil New Delhi. Aerodrome Post, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu – 641 014. PAN No. AADCC5259P अपीलाथ� / Appellant ��यथ�/ Respondent
Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv.; & िनधा�रतीक�ओरसे /Assessee by : Shri Amit Arora, C. A.; Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, राज�वक�ओरसे / Department by [CIT] - D. R. :
सुनवाईक�तारीख/ Date of hearing : 14/09/2023 11/12/2023 उ�ोषणाक�तारीख/Pronouncement on : आदेश / O R D E R PER C. N. PRASAD, J. M. :
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the final assessment order of the Assessing Officer dated 29.09.2019 passed 1
I.T.A. No. 9110/Del/2019
under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) pursuant to the directions of the DRP dated 26.08.2019 passed under section 144C(5) of the Act for the assessment year 2016-17.
The assessee in its appeal has raised the following substantive grounds:-
“Considering management support services as Fees for Technical services :
On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO has erred in holding that the fee for management support services provided to Cameron Manufacturing (India) Private Limited ('CMIPL') is in the nature of Fee for Technical Services ('FTS') under section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act') and as per Article 12(4) of the India-Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA') without appreciating that the of FTS. that the same does not fall under the definition.
On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO has erred in holding that the fee for management support services provided to CMIPL makes available technical knowledge or skill or know how and is taxable as FTS as per Article 12(4) of India- Singapore DTAA.
On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO has erred in not granting TDS credit amounting to Rs 9,74,418 which has led to a demand of Rs 3,25,066.
On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO has erred in levying interest under section 234B of the Act. 2
I.T.A. No. 9110/Del/2019
On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.”
The ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submits that in so far as ground Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, the assessee challenges the order of the Assessing Officer/DRP in considering the management support services fee received by the assessee as fees for technical services under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and as per Article 12(4) of the India Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). The ld. Counsel for the assessee further submits that identical issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal for the assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 in ITA. Nos. 1 & 6/JPR/2017 and 7960/Del/2018 dated 24.03.2023 wherein the Tribunal held that the receipts from Cameron Manufacturing India Pvt. Ltd. are not in the nature of FTS. Copy of the order is placed on record. The ld. Counsel further submits that as a matter of fact the Assessing Officer at page No. 3 para 5 stated that in the previous assessment years i.e. for the assessment years 2013-14 to 2015-16 the Assessing Officer has held that services provided by the assessee to Cameron Manufacturing India Pvt. Ltd. are taxable as fees for technical services and fall under the definition of FTS as per section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. The ld. Counsel further submits that the ld. DRP also in the directions stated that there is no change in facts and, therefore, they have followed their directions given for the assessment year 2013-14.
I.T.A. No. 9110/Del/2019
The ld. DR fairly submits that the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee.
Heard rival contentions perused the orders of the authorities below and the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case. On perusal of the order of the Tribunal we observe that whether the receipts from Cameron Manufacturing India Pvt. Ltd. are in the nature of fees for technical services was examined by the Tribunal for the assessment years 2013-14 to 2015-16 and the Tribunal held that such receipts are in the nature of FTS observing as under:-
“5. In ground no. 4, the assessee has challenged the decision of the departmental authorities in treating the receipts from Cameron Manufacturing India (P.) Ltd. (in short ‘Cameron India’) amounting to Rs.21,01,464/- towards business support services as FTS. 5.1 Briefly the facts relating to this issue are, the assessee had entered into an agreement with Cameron India for providing support and management services in the area of international purchasing, international marketing and sales, obtaining international quotations and tenders, coordinating sales, coordinating pricing policies, coordinating marketing strategies, sales administration, support in the area of accounting and finance, complying with standard statements of generally accepted accounting practice, other accounting activities, support in the area of planning, support in the area of tax and legal services, reviewing legal contracts, resolving local disputes and litigation, support in the area of information technology, providing assistance with the purchase or lease of new hardware and software, support and management in the area of human resources etc. The assessee did not offer the receipts from the aforesaid activities pleading that, firstly, such services were provided from outside India and secondly, while providing such services the assessee 4
I.T.A. No. 9110/Del/2019
has not made available any technical knowledge, knowhow, skill etc. to make it FTS. The Assessing Officer, however, did not accept assessee’s claim and held that they are in the nature of FTS as the services rendered are of managerial and consultancy nature and secondly while rendering such services, the assessee has made available technical knowledge, skill etc. Learned DRP also upheld the decision of the Assessing Officer. 5.2 Before us, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the services were rendered directly from the head office without any involvement of the PE in India. He further submitted, even if, some of the services rendered may be in the nature of managerial services, however, the receipts cannot be treated as FTS as the assessee had not made available any technical knowledge, skill etc. Thus, he submitted, due to non-fulfillment of the make available condition of Article 12(4)(b) of the treaty receipts cannot be treated as FTS. In support of such contentions, he relied upon the following decisions: 1. Inter Continental Hotels Group (Asia Pacific) (Pte.) Ltd. Vs. ACIT, [2021] 133 taxmann.com 99 (Delhi- Trib.) 2. Magotteaux International SA Vs. DCIT [2022] 141 taxmann.com 8 (Delhi – Trib.)
5.3 We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record. As could be seen from the facts on record, business support services were provided to a completely different entity in India through a separate agreement. It has no connection with the activity of the project office, which was set up only for the purpose of the contracts with Cairn India and ONGC. Therefore, we are convinced with the submissions of the assessee that the receipts from business support services have no link with PE, hence, its taxability has to be examined separately. In terms with the agreement with Camaron India the assessee is required to provide the following services:
I.T.A. No. 9110/Del/2019
S. Particulars Description of Remarks No. service 1. International Assists in Management fees would purchasing procurement of goods not make available in International technical knowledge, market. This includes experience, skill, know- reference to the how or process to vendors service receiver (CMI) 2. International Assists the group Management fees would marketing and companies to identify not make available sales potential business technical knowledge, opportunities and experience, skill, know- customers for the how or process to products and services service receiver (CMI) 3. Accounting Assistance in Management fees would and finance providing support in not make available the field of technical knowledge, accounting and experience, skill, know- finance and reporting how or process to requirements of CMI service receiver (CMI) 4. Tax and legal Assistance in Management fees would services providing support in not make available the field of tax and technical knowledge, legal services and experience, skill, know- reporting how or process to requirements of CMI services receiver (CMI) 5. Support and Assists in SAP Management fees would management implementation not make available in the area of activities, SAP technical knowledge, information support services, SAP experience, skill, know- technology development how, or process to activities, Web service receiver (CMI) service activities and Help Desk activities 6. Human Assistance in Management fees would resources providing support in not make available the field of human technical knowledge, resources and experience, skill, know- reporting how or process to requirements of CMI service receiver (CMI).
I.T.A. No. 9110/Del/2019
5.4 As could be seen from the nature of services, broadly it is managerial and to some extent it may be consultancy. However, it needs examination whether they fulfill the test of FTS under Article 12(4) of India – Singapore DTAA. 5.5 On a reading of Article 12(4) as a whole, we are convinced that the nature of services rendered do not fall either under Article 12(4)(a) or 12(4)(c) of the treaty. Thus, the only article where it can fit in is Article 12(4)(b). However, Article 12(4)(b) puts the condition that any consideration from services of managerial, technical or consultancy nature can be treated as FTS, if they make available technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or process, which enables the person acquiring the services to apply the technology contained therein. Though, the departmental authorities have made broad allegations that while rendering services the assessee has made available technical knowledge, experience etc., however, no material has been brought on record to establish such fact. The expression ‘make available’ if read in conjunction with, which enables the person acquiring the services to apply the technology contained therein’, would mean that the recipient of service will be in a position to acquire the technical knowledge, experience, skill etc so that it equips the recipient to apply such technical knowledge, experience, skill etc. by himself independently without the aid and assistance of the service provider. In the facts of the present appeal, the departmental authorities have failed to prove this fact through any cogent material brought on record. The nature of services enumerated earlier would make it clear that these are routine managerial and partly consultancy services to provide business support to the subsidiary. There is nothing on record to suggest that while rendering services, the assessee has made available any technical knowledge, know-how, skill etc. enabling the recipient of service to apply them independently. That being the case, in our considered opinion, the conditions of section 12(4)(b) are not satisfied. Therefore, we hold that the receipts are not in the nature of FTS. This ground is allowed.”
On perusal of the final assessment order and also DRP directions we observe that the facts in the current assessment year are identical to the facts for the assessment years 2013-14 to 7
I.T.A. No. 9110/Del/2019
2015-16. Therefore, as there is no change in the facts respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal for the assessment years 2013- 14 to 2015-16 we hold that the fee for management support services received from Cameron Manufacturing India Pvt. Ltd. is not in the nature of FTS. Ground Nos. 2 and 3 of grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed. 7. Coming to ground No. 4 of grounds of appeal the ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the Assessing Officer erred in not granting TDS credit amounting to Rs.9,74,418/- and a direction may be given by the Assessing Officer to grant credit for TDS. 8. The ld. DR has no objection. 9. On hearing both the sides we hereby direct the Assessing Officer to consider the plea of the assessee for granting credit for TDS in accordance with law. This ground is allowed for statistical purpose. 10. Ground Nos. 5 and 6 are in respect of charging interest under section 234B and initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act which are consequential and premature and no need for adjudication at this stage. 11. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above. Order pronounced in the open court on : 11/12/2023.
Sd/- Sd/- ( G. S. PANNU ) ( C. N. PRASAD ) VICE-PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER 8
I.T.A. No. 9110/Del/2019
Dated : 11/12/2023. *MEHTA* आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. आवेदक / Assessee 2. राज� / Revenue 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�- अपील / CIT (Appeals) 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, DELHI / DR, ITAT, DELHI 6. गाड� फाइल / Guard file. By order
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, New Delhi.
Date of dictation 07.12.2023 Date on which the typed draft is placed before the 08.12.2023 dictating Member Date on which the typed draft is placed before the 11.12.2023 Other Member Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr. 11.12.2023 PS/PS Date on which the fair order is placed before the 11.12.2023 Dictating Member for pronouncement Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr. 11.12.2023 PS/PS Date on which the final order is uploaded on the 11.12.2023 website of ITAT Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 11.12.2023
I.T.A. No. 9110/Del/2019
Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order Date of dispatch of the Order