SMS CONCAST AG,NEW DELHI vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

The effective grounds raised by the assessee are ground nos.

In ground no. 2, the assessee has raised the issue of taxability of an amount of Rs.2,84,92,345/- received from supply of drawings and designs as Fee for Technical Services (FTS).

Briefly the facts relating to the issue in dispute are, the assessee is a non-resident corporate entity incorporated in Switzerland and a tax resident of Switzerland. As stated, the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and supply of plant, equipment, drawings as well as rendering of services of the nature of supervision of erection and commissioning. The assessee had entered into separate contracts with JSW Steel Ltd. for the following works:

For the assessment year under dispute, the assessee filed its return of income on 26.09.2008 declaring nil income. In course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing officer on verifying the details available on record found that in the year under consideration, the assessee has received revenue from the following activities:

Noticing these facts, the Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to explain the reasons for not offering the income earned 3 | P a g e to tax. In response to the query raised by the Assessing Officer, the assessee submitted that, since, supply of plant and equipment as well as drawings and designs were made from outside India in Switzerland and sale was completed outside India as well as payments were received outside India, the amounts received are not taxable in India. Insofar as the receipt from supervisory services is concerned, the assessee submitted that since the service Permanent Establishment (PE) was for a period of less than six months, the amount received is not taxable. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer observed that the receipts from supply of drawings and designs are in the nature of technical services as per the definition of FTS under Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. Referring to the contract between the assessee and JSW Steel Ltd., the Assessing Officer observed that there is no denying the fact that the assessee has technical expertise in respect of the work of drawings and designs assigned to it. Further, the assessee is bound by the technical specification provided by the client. He observed, by utilizing the technical expertise gained by the assessee over the years, the drawings and designs are made and provided to the clients, subject to, approval of the clients. He 4 | P a g e observed that the development and transfer of technical plan/design is a sequel and integrated part of the services undertaken by the assessee. Thus, he held that the preparation of detailed design and drawing is nothing but rendering of technical services. Hence, has to be treated as FTS under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. While coming to such conclusion, he relied upon a decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of AEG Aktiengesllschaft Vs. CIT, [2004] 267 ITR 209.

Having held so, he proceeded to examine whether the fees received can be deemed to accrue or arise in India within the meaning of section 9. While dealing with this aspect, he observed that the ratio laid down in case of Ishikawajima Harima Heavy Industries Ltd. Vs. DIT (2007) 288 ITR 408 will be of no help to the assessee due to introduction of explanation under section 9(2) of the Act, which makes it clear that the income of a non-resident shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India under clause (v) or (vii) of sub-section (1) to section 9 and shall be included in the total income of non-resident, whether or not, non-resident has a residence or place of business or business connection in India or the non-resident has rendered services in India. He held, since, the aforesaid amendment was introduced with retrospective effect 5 | P a g e from 1st June, 1976, it will apply to the assessee. Thereafter, referring to various judicial precedents as well as definition of FTS under Article 12(4) of India – Switzerland DTAA, the Assessing Officer ultimately concluded that the amount received by the assessee towards supply of drawings and designs is taxable in India as FTS. Challenging the additions so made, the assessee preferred an appeal before learned first appellate authority.

Before us, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the assessee had entered into a contract with JSW Steel Ltd. for supply and sale of plants and equipments for 1 X 8 Strand Billet Caster for Long Product Plants required by the purchaser for its project located at Vijay Nagar, District Bellary, Karnataka. He submitted, along with plants and equipments for the said project, the assessee was also required to supply and sale drawings and documents. Thus, he submitted, drawings and designs to be supplied to the contractee are inextricably linked to supply of plant and equipment for the very same project. In this context, he drew our attention to the contracts for supply of plant and equipment and supply of drawings and documents. Further, 6 | P a g e he drew our attention to the copies of the invoices placed in the paper-book and submissions filed before the Assessing Officer. He submitted, in terms with the contract the assessee manufactured/fabricated the plants and equipments in its factory in Switzerland according to the specification provided by the contractee and supplied them to the contractee in India. He submitted, the drawing and design of such plant and equipment was also made in Switzerland and sold by the assessee outside India. He submitted, the payments in respect of sale of plants and equipments as well as drawings and designs were received by the assessee outside India. Thus, he submitted, transfer of title, both in relation to drawings and designs as well as plants and equipments have passed outside India. He submitted, insofar as the amount received towards sale of plant and equipment, the first appellate authority has accepted the legal position that since the sale has taken place outside India, the receipts are not taxable in India. However, he submitted, the first appellate authority erroneously upheld the taxation of amount received towards supply of drawings and designs as FTS, though, the sale of drawing and designs has taken place outside India under similar condition as the sale of equipment. He submitted, the 7 | P a g e contracts for supply of plant and equipment and supply of drawings and designs were entered on the same date and are inextricably connected. He submitted, supply of plant and equipment could not have been made, without the drawings and designs as the contractee could not have installed and commissioned the plant and machinery. He submitted, it is not the case of the Revenue that the drawings and designs could have been utilized by the contractee to get the plant and equipment manufactured from another manufacturer. Thus, the drawings and designs are in the nature of “as built drawings” and specifically with reference to the relevant plant and equipment. He submitted, the Departmental Authorities have not disputed the fact that the entire work relating to the drawings and designs was carried out outside India and also the title over such goods passed outside India. He submitted, the inseparability of two contracts is also not disputed by the departmental authorities.

He submitted, the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of AEG Aktiengesllschaft Vs. CIT (supra) is not germane to the issue at hand. Without prejudice, he submitted, in any case, if in the said decision the view take is contrary to the view taken by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, then the decision cannot be followed. Without prejudice to the aforesaid submission, learned counsel submitted, even assuming that the receipts are to be characterized as FTS, still, it will not be chargeable to tax in India, having regard to the provision of Article 12 and Article 7 of India-Switzerland DTAA. He submitted, the supervisory activity rendered in connection with the installation of plant and equipment extended for a period more than six months.

Strongly relying upon the observations of the Assessing Officer and learned Commissioner (Appeals), the learned Departmental Representative submitted, the assessee has entered into separate contracts with JSW Steel Ltd. for supply of plants and equipments and supply of designs and drawings. He submitted, the scope of work under both the contracts are different. Even, the considerations to be received for the work to be done under the two contracts have been separately identified.

We have considered rival submissions in the light of decisions relied upon and perused the materials on record. The short issue arising for consideration is, whether the amount received by the assessee for supply of drawing and design is taxable as FTS in India. Insofar as the factual aspect of the issue is concerned, there is no dispute that the designs and drawings were made outside India in Switzerland and were supplied to the contractee from Switzerland. It is a fact that the sale transaction 12 | P a g e qua the drawings and designs was completed in Switzerland and amounts were received in Switzerland. It is also a fact on record that both the supply of equipments and supply of designs and drawings are in relation to a single project of the contractee, viz., 1 X 8 Strand Billet Caster for Long Product Plants required for contractee’s project located in the state of Karnataka.

Materials on record reveal that the drawings and designs are in relation to basic engineering, which means, basic data as well as draft drawings, schematic drawings or layouts, diagrams, configuration and calculations necessary to design the equipment, structure and systems, as the case may be. It also includes, the necessary calculations, functional descriptions, final equipment list, preliminary bills of materials for media systems, line routing drawings, main cables routings, foundation outlines with load data, motors and components list. It also includes reference component drawings with reference bills of material where applicable. Details design consists of the final design engineering to procure or manufacture the equipment and plants.

On a reading of both the contracts, it is observed, though, the contracts have been separately executed, one for supply of plant and equipment and the other one for supply of drawings and designs, however, they have been executed on the very same date. One more crucial fact emerging from the drawing and design contract is, as per clause 17.1.1(iii), the purchaser is vested with the right to terminate the contract unilaterally, inter alia, due to the delay in delivery of the equipment in excess of 120 days for the reasons solely attributable to the seller and seller fails to take necessary remedial action. Thus, from the aforesaid condition imposed in the contract, it is very much clear that failure to supply plant and equipment within the stipulated time period can 14 | P a g e also determine the contract for supply of drawing and design and the purchaser can terminate the contract for supply of design and drawing in that eventuality. Thus, the aforesaid fact makes it clear that the contract for supply of drawings and designs is inextricably linked to the contract for supply of plant and equipment.

Undisputedly, though, the Assessing Officer has brought to tax the receipts from supply of plant and equipment by treating it as business profit of the assessee connected to the PE, however, learned first appellate authority has reversed the decision of the Assessing Officer by holding that since the plants and equipments were supplied from outside India and the sale transaction has concluded outside India, the receipts cannot be taxed in India.

In case of Linde Engineering Division Vs. DIT (supra), the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has observed that, in case, design and engineering are inextricable linked with the manufacture and fabrication of material and equipments to be supplied overseas and form an integral part of the supplies, then such services rendered would not be available to tax under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act as FTS. The Hon’ble Court further held that in order to fall outside the scope of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act, the link between the supply of equipment and services must be strong and interlinked that the services in question are not capable of being considered as services on standalone basis and are, therefore, subsumed as a part of the supplies. In the facts of the present case, in our view, the supply of drawing and design cannot be considered on standalone basis as the purchaser could not have utilized such drawings and designs without the supply of plants and equipments. Even, it is not the case of the department that by purchasing the drawings and designs, the purchaser could have got the plants and equipments manufactured by a third party. Therefore, in our view, the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the aforesaid decision squarely apply to the facts of the present appeal.

In case of CIT Vs. Andhra Petrochemicals Ltd. reported in [2015] 373 ITR 207, the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High court has observed that different components of the contract cannot be read in isolation. Similar view has also been expressed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. Mitsui Engineering and Ship Building (supra).

Insofar as the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of AEG Aktiengesllshaft Vs. CIT (supra), in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Court in case of Linde Engineering Division Vs. DIT (supra), there is no need for much deliberation on the said decision.

At this stage, we must address some of the submissions made by learned Departmental Representative. Before us, learned Departmental Representative has submitted that the amount received for supply of drawings and designs is taxable in India, as, they have been delivered at Bangalore Airport and the seat of arbitration is in India. We do not find much substance in the said submission of learned Departmental Representative, as, in respect of the contract for supply of plant and equipment, as well, 17 | P a g e the delivery has been made at Chennai Airport and the seat of arbitration is also in India. Therefore, once the income from supply of plant and equipment is held to be not taxable in India, since, the sale transaction was completed outside India, the same logic applies even to the amount received from supply of drawings and designs. Thus, after considering the totality of facts and circumstances, we hold that the amount received by the assessee from supply of drawings and designs is not taxable in India as FTS. This ground is allowed.

In ground no. 3, the assessee has challenged the taxability of Rs.5,56,822/-. As could be seen from the facts on record, the assessee received Euro 8,981 from rendition of supervisory services relating to erection and commissioning of Mormugao Steel Ltd. The assessee did not offer the income to tax in India claiming that the receipts are in the nature of business profit and in absence of PE in India, it is not taxable. The Assessing Officer, however, did not find merit in the submission of the assessee. He held that the receipts are in the nature of FTS under Article 12 of India Switzerland DTAA. Accordingly, he brought the amount to tax at the hands of the assessee. Learned first appellate authority also confirmed the addition. 18 | P a g e

Before us, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that as per the terms of the contract the assessee was required to provide duly qualified technical personnel for supervisory work and the consideration to be received for providing such personnel was fixed at daily rate. He submitted, fees for supervisory services being incidental to sale of plant do not fall within the ambit of Article 12 dealing with taxation of royalty and FTS. He submitted, the provision of such services is a normal part of contract of sale of plant to enable the supplier to ensure that the plant is properly erected, installed by the customer, keeping in view the performance guarantee obligation undertaken by it. He submitted, therefore, the amount is taxable as business profit, however, since, the tenure of supervisory services did not exceed the threshold limit of six months under Article 5(2)(j) of the treaty, there being no PE, amount is not taxable.

We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record. From the facts on record, it is observed, the assessee had entered into a contract for supply of electromagnetic stirrer. As per the scope of the contract, the assessee shall engineer, manufacture and deliver the plant and equipment. The scope of contract also included supervision, erection and 19 | P a g e commissioning of plant and equipment. As per assessee’s own admission, technical personnel were deputed to supervise the erection and commissioning of the plant and equipment. Thus, it is quite clear, in course of such supervisory activity, the qualified technical personnel deputed by the assessee must have imparted technical services for erection and commissioning of the plant and equipment. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the amount received clearly falls within the definition of FTS, both under the domestic law as well as under the treaty provision. Once the receipts fall within the definition of FTS under Article 12(4) of the DTAA as well as the domestic law, it becomes immaterial whether the assessee has a PE in India or not. Therefore, in our view, the amount in dispute having qualified as FTS, has rightly been brought to tax at the hands of the assessee. This ground is dismissed.

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.