TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed (EIPL) is a resident company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of producing and distributing television programmes. It mainly produces reality shows and has also ventured into soap operas. The applicant started its operation in 2006 with the non-fiction format show Big Boss (Big Brother) and has produced also other reality shows in India such as Fear Factor Khatron Ke Khiladi etc. During the financial year 2010-11 the applicant had produced the reality show Khatron Ke Khiladi Series 3 i.e. India s version of Fear Factor ( the show ), which was aired on Colors Channel. As per the format of the show, the shooting was to take place outside India (primarily Brazil). For the purpose of shooting the show outside India, the Applicant engaged Noise Associates to procure the services of Ms. Chantal Prud Homme as an executive producer for the show. 2. An agreement was signed between M/s. Noise Associates Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as NAPL ), a company incorporated under the laws of Singapore and having its registered office at 350, Orchard Road, Park Ave Suites #11-26 / 27, Shaw House, Singapore 238868 and the applicant, Ende ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Ke Khiladi series 3 i.e. India s version of Fear Factor, which was aired by Viacom 18 Media Private Limited (Viacom) on its channel Colors and for the programme Wipe Out which was aired on NDTV Imagine (the programmme). The applicant had offered the entire revenue received from Viacom to tax in India in its return of income and therefore, the same is not a subject matter of the application. As per the terms of the agreement, NAPL was responsible for the supervision of the overall production of the programme and for that purpose the services of Ms Chantal Prud Homme was commissioned. Ms. Chantal Prud Homme was to supervise and to ensure that the programme being produced by the applicant was commenced and completed on time as per the agreed proposal. She was not involved in the technical aspects of production of the programme. She prepared production schedule and ensured that the same was followed and she was a point of contact between talent and the production unit. 5. According to the learned AR of the applicant, the services obtained by the applicant from NAPL were merely support services and routine in nature in relation to the show/programme and did not invo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... applicant through Ms. Chantal Prud Homme are very specialized services in the nature of managerial, consultancy and technical services that are clearly covered by the definition of Fees for Technical Services. 7. We have considered submissions and arguments of the applicant and the Revenue. One of the submissions of the Revenue Department is that the applicant did not give documentary evidences indicating the exact nature of services provided and failed to satisfactorily substantiate the specific nature of services provided by NAPL. The invoice copies provided by the applicant do not fully illustrate the nature of the services rendered. In the course of the hearing, the learned AR of the applicant simply stated that the relevant evidences were already submitted before the Assessing Officer. In his final submission dated 27th September, 2013 the learned AR stated that detailed submission have been filed on 15 July, 21 August and 27 August, 2013. We do not find any material evidences to show the specific services rendered by NAPL apart from the submission made by the learned AR. We have noted that the agreement dated 1.6.2010 between NAPL and the applicant clearly state ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Article 12.4 of the Treaty is fulfilled. In such situation, we have to hold that the consideration paid for services rendered by NAPL to the applicant is not covered by Fees for Technical Services in terms of Article 12.4 of the India Singapore Tax Treaty. 9. Another submission of the applicant is that the NAPL does not have permanent establishment (PE) in India. It was stated that NAPL does not have any office in India and none of its employees visited India for providing the services. It was submitted that in the absence of PE of NAPL in India, the payments made to NAPL are not taxable under Article 7 of the India-Singapore Tax Treaty. The AR cited following judicial precedents in support of the submissions: 1.1 Dun and Bradstreet Espana S.A., In re (272 ITR 99) (AAR) 1.2 Fidelity Advisor Series VIII (271 ITR 1) (AAR) 1.3 Morgan Stanley Co. International Ltd (272 ITR 416)(AAR) 10. The Department simply stated that the payment made to NAPL for procuring services under the terms of the agreement is squarely covered under the definition of FTS as per India-Singapore Tax Treaty and there is no requirement of having PE for this purpose. 11. Article 7 of the India-S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
