New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (8) TMI 413 - ITAT MUMBAI

2015 (8) TMI 413 - ITAT MUMBAI - [2015] 42 ITR (Trib) 413 (ITAT [Mum]) - Withholding of tax - payment as reimbursement of cost for purchase of standard off the shelf software, a copyrighted article, by the Appellant to its group company, Lionbridge Technologies Inc. USA - whether is not in nature of royalty in the hands of recipient under Income Tax Act read with the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and USA and therefore the question of withholding doesn’t arise? - assessee in d .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d their share of cost to the Lionbridge USA. In support, the copy of the agreement along with invoices by the Vendors and allocation key has been placed in the paper book. It has not been disputed that the cost of reimbursement paid to Lionbridge USA is not chargeable to tax in India. If that is so, then assessee was not required to withhold the tax u/s 195 and this proposition is well supported by a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of G E India Technology Centre P Ltd (2010 (9) TMI .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

/2012 - Dated:- 5-8-2015 - SHRI B R BASKARAN AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JJ. For The Appellant : Shri Ajit Kumar Jain For The Respondent : Shri Vivek A Perampurna PER AMIT SHUKLA, AM: The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against impugned order dated 03.09.2012, passed by CIT(A)-11, Mumbai in relation to order passed u/s 201(1) & 201(1A) for the assessment year 2007-08. The grounds as raised by the assessee reads as under: 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (hereinafter ref .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Lionbridge Technologies Inc. USA is not in nature of royalty in the hands of recipient under Income Tax Act read with the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and USA and therefore the question of withholding doesn t arise. Your appellant therefore prays that tax liability under section 201(1) at ₹ 24,88,039 and interest liability under section 201(1A) at ₹ 12,68,900 be deleted . 2. The brief facts of the case are that Lionbridge Technologies Inc, USA has entered into a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

aid allocation was made on cost and no mark-up was charged by the Lionbridge US. The assessee being one of the group entity, made the payments to Lionbridge USA as reimbursement of the cost of the software. The assessee s stand was that the acquisition of the software for the use of software does not give rise to royalty or income in the hands of the recipient, because it was purchased off shelf and was merely a reimbursement of cost. The copies of the agreements entered into by the Lionbridge U .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, the assessee filed its detailed submission along with the various judicial decisions. However, the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the assessee s contention and confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. 4. Before us, Ld. Counsel Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, submitted that the assessee would have been liable to withhold the tax u/s 195 on the amount remitted to non-resident, only if the income would have been chargeable to tax in India in the hands of the nonresident. Here in this case, the Lionbridge US has .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

93 Taxman 234). He also referred to the bills raised by Microsoft and the amount of cost divided between different group companies including the assessee in India. He thus he submitted that the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS; and it cannot be treated as assessee in default . 5. On the other hand, Ld. DR submitted that the allocation key used by Lionbridge US for allocating the cost amongst various group entities was inappropriate and it is open to verification. Accordingly, cost allocated .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ntention and also perused the relevant finding given in the impugned order. Lionbridge USA has entered into an agreement with vendors like Microsoft inc. for the purchase of Standard off Shelves Software to be used by Lionbridge group entities across the globe. The cost of the purchase of the softwares has been allocated amongst various group entities based on allocation key of number of desktop in each office. The said allocation was made at cost and no mark-up was charged. Accordingly, all the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

gy Centre P Ltd (supra). Secondly, here in this case, it is not a question where Lionbridge US has developed software which has been given for use to the assessee. The software has been purchased from Microsoft, the cost of which has been distributed amongst all the group entities. It is pure case of reimbursement of cost and admittedly, there is no mark-up. Accordingly, there was no liability to deduct TDS on such reimbursement of cost. On first proposition, the Hon ble Supreme Court in the cas .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on 276B. Thus, Section 195 imposes a statutory obligation on any person responsible for paying to a nonresident, any interest (not being interest on securities) or any other sum (not being dividend) chargeable under the provisions of the I.T. Act, to deduct income tax at the rates in force unless he is liable to pay income tax thereon as an agent. Payment to non-residents by way of royalty and payment for technical services rendered in India are common examples of sums chargeable under the provi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

12 per cent per annum on the amount of such tax from the date on which such tax was deductible to the date on which such tax is actually paid. The most important expression in Section 195(1) consists of the words "chargeable under the provisions of the Act". A person paying interest or any other sum to a non-resident is not liable to deduct tax if such sum is not chargeable to tax under the I.T. Act. For instance, where there is no obligation on the part of the payer and no right to r .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

under an obligation to deduct TAS in respect of such composite payments. The obligation to deduct TAS is, however, limited to the appropriate proportion of income chargeable under the Act forming part of the gross sum of money payable to the non-resident. This obligation being limited to the appropriate proportion of income flows from the words used in Section 195(1), namely, "chargeable under the provisions of the Act". It is for this reason that vide Circular No. 728 dated October 30 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

h the assessee had not made an application under Section 18(3B) (now Section 195(2) of the I.T. Act). The application of Section 195(2) preLionbridge Technologies Private Limited ITA No. 7121/Mum/2012 6 supposes that the person responsible for making the payment to the non-resident is in no doubt that tax is payable in respect of some part of the amount to be remitted to a non-resident but is not sure as to what should be the portion so taxable or is not sure as to the amount of tax to be deduct .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ovak Ocean Shipping International Joint Stock Company Vs. ITO [81 ITR 162(Calcutta)] that an application for NOC cannot be said to be an application under Section 195(2) of the Act. While deciding the scope of Section 195(2) it is important to note that the tax which is required to be deducted at source is deductible only out of the chargeable sum. This is the underlying principle of Section 195. Hence, apart from Section 9(1), Sections 4, 5, 9, 90, 91 as well as the provisions of DTAA are also .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ction 195(2) is a safeguard. From this it follows that where a person responsible for deduction is fairly certain then he can make his own determination as to whether the tax was deductible at source and, if so, what should be the amount thereof. Submissions and findings thereon. 8. If the contention of the Department that the moment there is remittance the obligation to deduct TAS arises is to be accepted then we are obliterating the words "chargeable under the provisions of the Act" .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

recovery. Chapter XVII-B deals with deduction at source by the payer. On analysis of various provisions of Chapter XVII one finds use of different expressions, however, the expression "sum chargeable under the provisions of the Act" is used only in Section 195. For example, Section 194C casts an obligation to deduct TAS in respect of "any sum paid to any resident". Similarly, Sections 194EE and 194F inter alia provide for deduction of tax in respect of "any amount" .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

It is a provision requiring tax to be deducted at source to be paid to the Revenue by the payer who makes payment to a non- resident. Therefore, Section 195 has to be read in conformity with the charging provisions, i.e., Sections 4, 5 and 9. This reasoning flows from the words "sum chargeable under the provisions of the Act" in Section 195(1). The fact that the Revenue has not obtained any information per se cannot be a ground to construe Section 195widely so as to require deduction o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the provisions of the Act" from Section 195(1). While interpreting a Section one has to give weightage to every word used in that section. While interpreting the provisions of the Income Tax Act one cannot read the charging Sections of that Act de hors the machinery Sections. The Act is to be read as an integrated Code. Section 195appears in Chapter XVII which deals with collection and recovery. As held in the case of C.I.T. Vs. Eli Lilly & Co. (India) (P.) Ltd. [312 ITR 225] the provis .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

oses statutory obligation on the payer to deduct TAS when he pays any income "chargeable under the head salaries". Similarly, Section 195 imposes a statutory obligation on any person responsible for paying to a nonresident any sum "chargeable under the provisions of the Act", which expression, as stated above, do not find place in other Sections of Chapter XVII. It is in this sense that we hold that the I.T. Act constitutes one single integral inseparable Code. Hence, the pro .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

implies that only the recipient of the sum, i.e., the payee could seek a refund. It must therefore follow, if the Department is right, that the law requires tax to be deducted on all payments. The payer, therefore, has to deduct and pay tax, even if the so-called deduction comes out of his own pocket and he has no remedy whatsoever, even where the sum paid by him is not a sum chargeable under the Act. The interpretation of the Department, therefore, not only requires the words "chargeable u .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

able is liable to tax. The entire basis of the Department's contention is based on administrative convenience in support of its interpretation. According to the Department huge seepage of revenue can take place if persons making payments to non-residents are free to deduct TAS or not to deduct TAS. It is the case of the Department that Section 195(2), as interpreted by the High Court, would plug the loophole as the said interpretation requires the payer to make a declaration before the ITO(T .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

htage to those words. Further, Section 195 uses the word payer' and not the word "assessee". The payer is not an assessee. The payer becomes an assessee-in-default only when he fails to fulfill the statutory obligation under Section 195(1). If the payment does not contain the element of income the payer cannot be made liable. He cannot be declared to be an assessee-in-default. The abovementioned contention of the Department is based on an apprehension which is ill founded. The paye .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version