Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2009 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (10) TMI 80 - AT - Income TaxTDS u/s 195 - Nature of the payments - fee for technical services or merely by way of payment for supply of personnel - scope of India-USA DTAA - TDS provisions are attracted or not - whether the payments in question made by the assessee to the ACSC, were by way of fee for technical services or merely by way of payment for supply of personnel - AO held that the assessee was liable to deduct tax as per s. 195 for the remittances made to ACSC, USA and for the aforesaid default, the assessee was liable to be treated as an assessee in default as per s. 201(1) in respect of tax which it has failed to deduct - CIT(A), held that the payments made by the assessee to ACSC, USA would not be chargeable to tax in India in view of the provisions of DTAA between India and USA and cannot be fastened with the liability for TDS - whether there is any element of technical services to be rendered by the assessee in terms of the agreement? HELD THAT:- In our considered view, the primary services rendered by the ACSC to the assessee is akin to recruitment and placement service rather than making available any technology, plan, design, etc. One important aspect we noticed is that the final product or result on account of deployment of technical personnel by the assessee through the ACSC is not predetermined by the ACSC or the assessee. All the agreements, invoices and related documents produced before us lead to the fact that the payments have been made only for supply of manpower for certain amount of hours and nothing more. Since there is no technology, skill, experience, technical plan, design, etc. had been made available either by the assessee or the ACSC, as held by the CIT(A), invoking the provisions of art. 12(4)(b) of the DTAA for treating the payments as chargeable to tax in India, is not justified. In our view, the CIT(A) was justified in holding that the services rendered by the ACSC for which remittances in question have been made by the assessee are akin to those of a recruitment or placement agency, and would not come within the purview of 'fee for inducted services' within the meaning of art. 12(4)(b) of the DTAA between India and USA. Even if the payments would constitute fees for technical services u/s. 9(1)(vii), in view of s. 90(2), the Indian company has option to be governed by the provisions of the tax treaty, if the same are more beneficial to it. Accordingly, the payments so made by the assessee company to ACSC will not be chargeable to tax in India, in view of the provisions of the DTAA between India and USA. We are in agreement with the elaborate reasoning given by the CIT(A) in the impugned order, and consequently we find no justification to interfere with the same. As for the case law relied on by the learned Departmental Representative, we find that the same, is clearly distinguishable in as much as in the present case the remittances made are purely for supply of manpower since the services rendered by the ACSC are akin to those of a recruitment or placement agency, and there is no involvement of any technical services. Thus we find that the other arguments advanced by the learned Departmental Representative, like a common person, Baburao Mandava, being the President for ACSC and the chairman of the assessee, and reliance on the write-up from the internet website and ruling of the AAR, are devoid of any merit. Decided against evenue.
|