Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (6) TMI 1255 - AT - Income TaxTDS u/s 195 - nature of the payments, debited to the account head or classified as ‘Reimbursements’ by the assessee, a Chennai based software company, handling business verticals like, pension plan administration, health care practice, system integration solutions, etc., to Gulf Outsourcing LLC (‘GOS’ for short), a Dubai based foreign company (nonresident), to whom it is providing services under a consultancy agreement - Revenue claims it to be in the nature of fee for technical services toward services being provided by GOS to the assessee-company through Info-Drive LLC, UAE eld that:- The expenditure is the assessee’s contractual obligation and the onus is on it to make suitable arrangements for timely payment for salary of, and other expenditure incurred by, it’s employees. Why, the payment could be made directly to the bank accounts of the employees. In fact, even in India the salary is customarily paid by the 7th of the following month, and also legally required to be paid within a reasonable time; presumably, the 10th day thereof. The relevant law/s of UAE assumes significance in this regard, which shall have to explain both, the salary as well as other expenditure. Further, not only does the ‘service recipient’ agree to make the payment in the first instance, it extends a 90 day credit to the assessee for the same, which is surprising indeed. The minutes also refer to the assessee facing financial difficulty in making the payment without collection, which may explain the credit. GOC could, in that case, make the payment early on or even in advance. Further, details of employee emoluments are normally not divulged, as in that case the contractee would get a clear idea of the assessee’s employee cost, which constitutes the principal cost, enabling it to bargain for a lower cost on its contract with the assessee. The assessee clearly has much explaining to do; it’s case, though valid in principle, is largely unsubstantiated, with several loose ends. The Revenue’s stand, we may at the same time state, does not take into account the employment agreements and the monthly debit notes raised by GOS on the assessee. The treatment of the said transactions in the books of GOS, both at the time of payment and its’ recovery, would also be relevant, which (the said books) would also throw light on the relationship, if any, with Info-Drive LLC, UAE The matter is thus clearly in-determinate, and would therefore have to be restored back to the file of the AO, setting aside the impugned order, which we hereby direct. The burden of proof, in-as-much as it is in the intimate know of its affairs, is on the assessee, even as the Revenue’s stand also has to be consistent with it’s findings, based on material on record and explanation/s offered by the assessee. Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
|