Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2021 (10) TMI 356 - AT - Income TaxIncome accrued in India - Rendering services to non-resident entities - Disallowances of consultancy fees and architect fees - non-resident entities have provided technical/consultancy services which enabled the assessee to apply them in its business - whether the payment made by the non-resident entities can be termed as FTS under Article 12(4) of India Singapore Tax Treaty? - whether not only the fees paid comes within the purview of FTS under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act but also under Article 12(4) of the tax treaty as the services provided by the non residents made available technical knowledge skill know-how process to the assessee to utilize in its business - HELD THAT - As from the nature of services provided by the non-resident entities and the terms and conditions under which it was provided it is clear that whatever services were provided are project specific and cannot be used for any other project by the assessee. Further while providing such services neither any technical knowledge skill etc is made available to the assessee for utilizing them in future independently nor any developed drawing or design have been provided to the assessee which can be applied by the assessee independently. Thus it is very much clear the conditions of Article 12(4) of the tax treaty are not fulfilled. Though the assessing officer has generally observed that in course of providing services to the assessee the non-resident entities have made available technical knowledge know-how processes to the assessee. However no substantive material has been brought on record by him to back such conclusion. Even before us learned departmental representative has not brought any material to demonstrate that conditions of Article 12(4) have been fulfilled in the facts of the present case. No valid reasons to interfere with the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly we uphold the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the issue by dismissing ground raised.
|