Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 1106 - AT - Income TaxTDS Liablity - ‘fees for technical services’ - whether the “Architectural services” rendered by M/s. Andy Fisher Workshop Pte. Ltd., Singapore and “Interior designing and Architectural services” rendered by M/s. FBEYE International Pte. Ltd., Singapore are taxable u/s. 9(1)(vii)(b) of Income Tax Act, 1961 and also under Article 12(iv)(c) of India Singapore DTAA? - Held that:- Where in rendering of any service there is no transfer of technology, technical know-how or any technical knowledge or skill that assessee cannot apply in furtherance of his business objects, the payments for same in our opinion does not fall within the scope of ‘fees for technical services’. Once, the payments are held not to be in the nature of ‘fees for technical’ services there is no point in travelling to the next step to ascertain whether they are exempt in view of DTAA between the two countries or not. Since, we have held that the payments made to Singapore parties are not in the ‘nature of royalties or fees for technical services’, we are of the opinion that no purpose would be served by referring to Article 12 of India-Singapore DTAA to see whether such payments are taxable or exempt. Assessee was not required to deduct tax on the impugned payments - Decided in favour of assessee. Condonation of delay - revenue challenged condoning of delay by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in filing of appeal u/s. 248 - Held that:- The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) observed that there is no negligence or laxity on part of the assessee in preferring appeal, the delay was caused because of wrong advice given by the professionals. It is a well settled law that condonation of delay should be a rule and denial an exception. It is not the length of delay which matters but the reason for delay in filing of the appeal which is of prime importance. The Courts have been taking liberal view in condoning substantial delay where the delay has been explained. On the other hand, minor delay in filing of the appeal is not pardoned where it has not been sufficiently explained or delay is attributable to utter negligence or lackadaisical attitude of appellant. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) after taking into consideration the reasons and circumstances causing delay has condoned the delay. We do not deem appropriate to interfere with the same. - Decided against revenue.
|