Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 2214 - AT - Income TaxScope of appeal under Section 248 - Ascertainment of tax withholding liability from foreign remittances made by the assessee - Appeal by person denying liability to deduct tax in certain cases - whether the assessee can be said have received any services which makes available any “technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or processes or consist of the development and transfer of a technical plan or technical design which enables the person acquiring the services to apply the technology contained therein” in the sense that there is a transfer of technology? - HELD THAT:- It is an ongoing contract that the assessee has entered into with the service provider, i.e. Israeli entity, and the thrust of the arrangement is essentially for supervisory and consultancy services. These services cannot, by any stretch of logic, be considered to have transferred the technology in the sense that the recipient of service can be said to have been enabled to perform these services, without recourse to the service provider, on its own. An incidental benefit, by way of enrichment of experience, to the recipient of a consultancy service or supervision service does not amount to making available technical knowledge, skills or experience. The payment is not for incidental enrichment of experience of the assessee, even if that be so, but for receipt of services by way of review, supervision and consultancy. The consideration for the payments in question is the review, supervision and consultancy services and not for such an incidental enrichment, even if that be, of experience. These services donot make available technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or processes. Departmental Representative has not brought on record any material to demonstrate that there was any transfer of the skills of service provider to the recipient of services. The arguments raised by the appellant are based on sweeping generalizations and are not supported by any specific evidences in support of the same. Objection against admission of additional evidence, one has to bear in mind the fact that every evidence produced in an appeal against 248, when it is not in the backdrop of a specific order under section 195, is a new evidence in the sense that such appellate proceedings are the original proceedings in that extent. When no objections are raised by the Assessing Officer to the admission of these appeal by the CIT(A) under section 248, without a specific order passed under section 195, grievances raised against the admission of additional evidence by the CIT(A) are devoid of legally sustainable merits. We reject the same.
|