9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (5) TMI 106 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 36(1)(iii) - Interest free loan given to subsidiary on account of commercial expediency - HELD THAT - Assessee company had signed a specific agreement with the FFC and had submitted that the profitability of its associate FFC would impact the financial status and the business of the assessee concern. CIT(A) took a very narrow view of the expression commercial expediency by observing from the financials of the FFC that it had earned profit during the year and therefore it was out of scope of commercial expediency. We have carefully considered the same but do not agree with it. Transition of FFC from loss making to marginal profit was only during the year and that it would not per-se end the requirement of commercial expediency . This is best left to the assessee to judge its requirement of commercial expediency unless the AO makes it out a case that commercial expediency is no longer required. The commercial expediency does not mean the support by a holding company to its associate concern only when the associate concern is in a loss. CIT(A) observed that the loan from the holding company to its subsidiary FFC during the year had increased from Rs. 2.60 Crores to 4.18 Crores which prima facie shows that the subsidiary was in need of more funds during the year. Moreover that in pursuance of the management agreement entered by the assessee with the associate concern the assessee had earned consultancy and service fee. Therefore direct the AO to delete the disallowance of interest made by the AO in respect of the loan given by the assessee company. Disallowance of retainership fees u/s 40(a)(i) - payment of retainership fees for the alleged non-deduction of tax at source on the said payment - HELD THAT - As assessee has filed copy of ledger account and relevant TDS certificate substantiating that TDS was deposited before the due date of filing of return for relevant assessment year. This issue is restored back to the file of the AO to verify the above contention of the assessee and to take into cognizance the TDS deducted and decide the issue afresh as per law. Ground Nos.2 and 2.1 is partly allowed as per the above observation. Taxability in India - Disallowance of payment made to foreign nationals - HELD THAT - As services rendered by Rosamond Freeman-Attwood falls under the category of Independent Personal Service and since the stay was less than 120 days therefore the amount paid to Rosamond Freeman-Attwood was not taxable in India and therefore the assessee was not required to deduct the TDS u/s 40(a)(ia). Therefore the disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is deleted. For payment to M/s Elephant Pepper Camp Ltd. the services rendered outside India and similarly the India Kenya DTAA did not contain the separate provisions for taxing of Fees for Technical Services during the relevant period the disallowanceis not sustainable. Contention of the AO that it was imperative on the part of the assessee to make an application u/s 195(2) for taking a certificate u/s 195(2) of the Act in respect of any payment made to a non-resident irrespective of the fact that the amount was taxable in India or not is not acceptable. Hon ble Supreme Court in in the case of GE India Technology Centre (P.) Ltd. 2010 (9) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT has held that section 195(2) of the Act gets attracted to cases where payment made is a composite payment in which certain proportion of payment has an element of income chargeable to tax in India. However as held earlier the payment to foreign entities is not taxable in India and therefore there was no requirement for the assessee to seek a certificate for non deduction of TDS in respect of the aforesaid payments u/s 195(2) of the Act. Disallowance of payments by AO was that the assessee had not submitted any document evidencing the service received from the aforesaid persons and the purpose of the payment made to these parties - The same is not acceptable firstly for the reason that the Assessing Officer made the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act and not under section 37(1) of the Act. Further necessary documents regarding the services rendered have been submitted by the assessee Therefore we hold that the AO was not correct in making the disallowance and the same is deleted.
Issues Presented and Considered
1. Whether the interest expenditure on interest-free inter-corporate loans advanced to associate concerns, particularly to M/s Forest Friendly Camps Pvt. Ltd. (FFC), is allowable as a business deduction under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, considering the principle of commercial expediency. 2. Whether the retainership fees of Rs. 4,20,000/- paid to a resident professional without timely tax deduction at source (TDS) can be disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 3. Whether payments made to non-resident parties-Rs. 9,65,000/- to Rosamond Freeman-Attwood, Sri Lanka, and Rs. 5,61,700/- to Elephant Pepper Camp Ltd., Kenya-without deduction of tax at source are liable for disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) on the ground that these payments constitute "Fees for Technical Services" (FTS) taxable in India under section 9(1)(vii) and whether the assessee was required to obtain a certificate under section 195(2) for lower or nil deduction of tax. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis Issue 1: Allowability of Interest Expenditure on Interest-Free Loans to Associate Concerns under Section 36(1)(iii) Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 36(1)(iii) allows deduction of interest on borrowed capital if the interest is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. The Supreme Court in S.A. Builders Ltd. vs CIT defined "commercial expediency" broadly as "such expenditure as a prudent businessman incurs for the purpose of business," allowing business expenditure even if not legally obligated but incurred on grounds of commercial expediency. Court's Reasoning and Interpretation: The Assessing Officer disallowed interest expenditure on loans given interest-free to subsidiaries, questioning the commercial expediency of such interest-free advances, especially to FFC which had shown profits during the year. The CIT(A) partially allowed the appeal, deleting disallowance for loans to some subsidiaries but upheld disallowance for FFC, reasoning that FFC's improved financial health negated the need for interest-free loans. The Tribunal disagreed with CIT(A)'s narrow interpretation of commercial expediency, emphasizing that the transition of FFC from loss to profit in the relevant year did not negate the need for financial support. The Tribunal noted that the loan amount to FFC had increased substantially, indicating ongoing financial requirements. Additionally, the appellant earned significant management consultancy fees from FFC, evidencing a strategic business interest and commercial rationale for the interest-free advances. Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the wide definition of commercial expediency from the Supreme Court, holding that the interest-free loans were made for business purposes and thus the interest expenditure was allowable. It rejected the CIT(A)'s reliance on FFC's profit as a reason to disallow the interest, stating that the decision to support the subsidiary financially is a commercial judgment best left to the assessee unless disproved by the Assessing Officer. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) took a restrictive view focusing on FFC's profitability, while the assessee and Tribunal emphasized strategic business interests and commercial expediency. The Tribunal favored the latter, finding no justification to disallow the interest. Conclusion: The disallowance of interest expenditure on loans to FFC is deleted, and the interest is allowed as a business deduction under section 36(1)(iii). Issue 2: Disallowance of Retainership Fees for Non-Deduction of TDS under Section 40(a)(ia) Legal Framework: Section 194J mandates deduction of tax at source on fees for professional services. Section 40(a)(ia) disallows expenditure if TDS is not deducted or deposited as required. The proviso to section 40(a)(ia) allows exemption if tax is deducted and deposited before the due date of filing the return. Court's Reasoning: The Assessing Officer disallowed retainership fees paid to Mr. Yusuf Ansari due to non-deduction of TDS. The assessee contended that TDS was deducted and deposited, but erroneously credited to a different assessment year. The CIT(A) rejected this claim for lack of documentary evidence, relying on Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, which presumes adverse inference if evidence is withheld. Application of Law to Facts: The assessee submitted ledger accounts and Form 16A indicating that TDS was deducted and deposited before the due date. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) overlooked these documents and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification of the TDS evidence. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The revenue relied on procedural non-compliance and absence of evidence, while the assessee relied on documentary proof of TDS compliance. The Tribunal favored the assessee's position subject to verification. Conclusion: The disallowance is set aside and the issue remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification of TDS deposit. The ground is partly allowed. Issue 3: Disallowance of Payments to Non-Residents Without Deduction of TDS on Grounds of Taxability as Fees for Technical Services Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 9(1)(vii) defines "fees for technical services" (FTS) as consideration for managerial, technical or consultancy services. Section 195 mandates TDS on payments to non-residents chargeable to tax in India. Section 40(a)(ia) disallows expenditure if TDS is not deducted as required. Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAA) may provide exemptions or alternate tax regimes. The Supreme Court in GE India Technology Centre (P.) Ltd. vs CIT clarified that TDS obligation arises only if payment is chargeable to tax in India. The Tribunal decisions have held that services falling under "Independent Personal Services" (IPS) as per DTAA are taxable only in the resident state unless stay exceeds specified days. Court's Reasoning and Interpretation: The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) held that payments to Rosamond Freeman-Attwood (Sri Lanka) and Elephant Pepper Camp Ltd. (Kenya) were FTS taxable in India and liable for TDS deduction. CIT(A) rejected the assessee's contention that these payments were covered under "Independent Personal Services" under the respective DTAAs, noting that the DTAA provisions limited IPS to certain professions. The Tribunal undertook a detailed examination of the nature of services and the DTAA provisions. It noted that:
The Tribunal relied on these principles and precedents to hold that the payments were not taxable in India and thus no TDS was required to be deducted. Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal found that the services rendered by Rosamond Freeman-Attwood and Elephant Pepper Camp Ltd. fell within the ambit of Independent Personal Services under the respective DTAAs and were not taxable in India due to absence of sufficient presence or permanent establishment. It also held that the absence of a certificate under section 195(2) was immaterial since no tax was chargeable in India. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The revenue emphasized the broad definition of FTS under domestic law and the failure to deduct TDS, while the assessee relied on DTAA provisions, nature of services, duration of stay, and judicial precedents. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's arguments and rejected the revenue's narrow interpretation. Conclusion: The disallowance of Rs. 15,26,700/- under section 40(a)(ia) for payments to non-residents is deleted. The Tribunal held that no TDS was required to be deducted on these payments. Significant Holdings "An expression of wide import and includes such expenditure as a prudent businessman incurs for the purpose of business. The expenditure may not have been incurred under any legal obligation, but yet it is allowable as a business expenditure, if it was incurred on grounds of commercial expediency." (S.A. Builders Ltd. vs CIT) "The transition of FFC from loss making to marginal profit was only during the year and that it would not per-se end the requirement of 'commercial expediency'. This is best left to the assessee to judge its requirement of commercial expediency unless the Assessing Officer makes it out a case that commercial expediency is no longer required." "Section 195(2) of the Act gets attracted to cases where payment made is a composite payment in which certain proportion of payment has an element of 'income' chargeable to tax in India. However, if payment is not taxable in India, there is no requirement to seek certificate under section 195(2)." (GE India Technology Centre (P.) Ltd. vs CIT) "The specific professions set out in Article 14/16 of the DTAA relating to 'Independent Personal Services' are only illustrative and not exhaustive. Services similar in nature to those professions can be covered under IPS." "The payments made to the non-resident parties for spa consultancy and market research were not taxable in India under the respective DTAAs and hence no TDS was required to be deducted." "The disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) on account of non-deduction of TDS on payments to non-residents is not sustainable where the payments are not taxable in India."
|
