TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 344X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vice income being ancillary and incidental to royalty income, in reality, it is a reverse situation. In such a scenario, it cannot be said that centralised service income, being ancillary and incidental to royalty income, would fall under Article 12(4)(a) of the Tax Treaty. We hold that the receipts from centralised service income are not taxable as FTS/FIS under Article 12(4)(a) of India-USA DTAA. Accordingly, we direct the AO to delete the additions.Appeal of assessee allowed. - ITA Nos. 2222 & 2223/Del/2022, ITA No. 2224/Del/2022 - - - Dated:- 31-5-2023 - SHRI G.S. PANNU, PRESIDENT AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Assessee : Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, CA Ms. Deepika, CA For the Revenue : Sh. Bhuvnesh Kulshrestha, CIT-DR ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M.: Captioned appeals have been filed by two different assessees, challenging the final assessment orders passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 pertaining to assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20, in pursuance to the directions of learned Dispute Resolution Penal (DRP). 2. The only issue, arising in these appeals, relates to taxability or other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the issue is squarely covered by various decisions of the Tribunal and the Hon ble High Court in assessees own case as well as in cases of other assessees also. In this context, he drew our attention to the relevant orders of the Tribunal and Hon ble jurisdictional High Court. Thus, he submitted since, the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee, the additions may be deleted. 6. Learned Departmental Representative strongly relied upon the observations of the Assessing Officer and learned DRP. However, he could not controvert the submission of learned counsel for the assessees that the issue is squarely covered by various decisions of the Tribunal and Hon ble jurisdictional High Court. 7. We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record. We have also applied our mind to the decisions cited before us. As discussed earlier, the assessees, hitherto, earned income from two different streams of income under an agreement entered with some Indian hotel owners. For license to use brand name/trademark, the assessees have earned royalty income, which, undisputedly, have been offered to tax in India. The second stream of income is from providing cen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch as, Starwood Preferred Planner ( SPP ), Star Choice, Team HOT, Starwood Preferred Guest ( SPG ) and IFH-Reservation Mystery Shopper Program are under taken by the assessee, for which, the Indian Hotel has to pay certain amount of fee for enjoying the program. (c) Distribution of Reservation Services The assessee provides reservation services, such as, offering, booking, modifying and communicating Guest Rooms and Meeting Space reservations for the Hotel through international computerized reservation systems. These services are rendered using internet/telephone. (d) Technological Services Under this category, assessee provides Network Support Services ( NSS ) and Starwood Portal Services ( SPS ) to provide connectivity of hotels to Technology Centre. While Network Support Services supports day to day operations of Wide Area Network (WAN), email and remote access. Starwood Hotel Service acts as a tool for knowledge sharing and access to business content. (e) Operation Services Under this category, guests are offered a number of ways to get access to key information on their stay experience, including in-room video, internet and paper. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the payment received by the assessee to be in the nature of FIS under Article 12(4)(a), learned Commissioner (Appeals) has attempted to link the Centralized Services Agreement entered into by the assessee with License Agreement entered into by the Indian Hotels with group affiliates for grant of right to use trade name. It is a fact on record, under License Agreement for grant of right to use trade name, the Indian hotels have paid license fee to the affiliates. The affiliates have also offered such license fee as royalty income. There is no dispute that the license fee paid to the affiliates have been taxed in India. It is the reasoning of learned Commissioner (Appeals) that since the services rendered by the assessee under Centralized Services Agreement is ancillary and subsidiary to the License Agreement for grant of right to use trade name, the amount received by the assessee in pursuance to Centralized Services Agreement has to be treated as FIS under Article 12(4)(a) of the Tax Treaty. 13. It is relevant to observe, identical issue relating to taxability of centralized service fee as FIS under Article 12(4) came up for consideration before the Coordinate Bench in cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ton International Inc. neither the Tribunal nor the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court to examine the implication and applicability of Article 12(4)(a) of the Tax Treaty. 15. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that the five determinative factors for classification of the consideration received as FIS under of paragraph 12(4)(a) of the treaty, as, explained in the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to India US Treaty are clearly satisfied, as, the predominant factor in relation to the clients is the grant of license to use the name, which gave rise to royalty and all other payments and agreements flow from the License Agreement. 17. For better appreciation, it is necessary to look into the provisions contained under Article 12(4)(a), which in turn, refers to Article 12(3) of the Tax Treaty. Article 12(3) of the Tax Treaty readS as under: USA ARTICLE 12 ROYALTIES AND FEES FOR INCLUDED SERVICES 1. .. 2 3. The term royalties as used in this Article means : (a) payments of any kind received as a consideration for the use of, or the right to use, any copyright of a literary, artistic, or scientific work, includin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved for rendering any technical or consultancy services would come within the ambit of FIS, if such services are ancillary and subsidiary to the application and enjoyment of the right, property or information for which the payment described in Article 12(3) is received. So, the conditions to be satisfied to be regarded as FIS under Article 12(4)(a) are, services for which the payment was received must be ancillary and subsidiary to the application or enjoyment of the right, property or information for which the payment in the nature of royalty under Article 12(3) is received. 20. In the facts of the present appeal, undisputedly, the assessee is neither the owner of the trademark nor has received any payment as a consideration for the use of, or right to use of trademark in terms of Article 12(3)(a). The payment was received by the group affiliates under a distinct and separate license agreement. Whereas, the assessee provided centralized services relating to marketing, advertisement, promotion etc. under a distinct and separate agreement. So, when the assessee is not the owner of the property, there is no question of allowing a third party to use or right to use of the proper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 ; 3. Whether the amount paid for the services (or which would be paid by parties operating at arm's length) is an insubstantial portion of the combined payments for the services and the right, property, or information described in paragraph 3 ; 4. Whether the payment made for the services and the royalty described in paragraph 3 are made under a single contract (or a set of related contracts); and 5. Whether the person performing the services is the same person as, or a related person to, the person receiving the royalties described in paragraph 3 [for this purpose, persons are considered related if their relationship is described in Article 9 (Associated Enterprises) or if the person providing the service is doing so in connection with an overall arrangement which includes the payer and recipient of the royalties]. To the extent that services are not considered ancillary and subsidiary to the application or enjoyment of some right, property, or information for which a royalty payment under paragraph 3 is made, such services shall be considered included services only to the extent that they are described in paragraph 4(b). 21. If one criticall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l services, they are not ancillary and subsidiary to the rental of the monitoring equipment. Accordingly, the cleaning services are not included services within the meaning of paragraph 4(a). 22. As could be seen from the aforesaid illustration, though, both the services are interlinked, however, the predominant purpose of the arrangement is provision of cleaning services, hence, will not be ancillary or subsidiary to the rental of monitoring machine. Hence, the cleaning services are not to be regarded as FIS under Article 12(4)(a) of the Tax Treaty. 23. The factual position, in a way, is quite similar in the present case. The aforesaid illustration to some extent can be made applicable to the facts of the present appeal. Even if one agrees with learned Commissioner (Appeals) that the License Agreement and Centralized Services Agreement are related to each other and the Centralized Services Agreement actually flows out of the License Agreement but still the issue which requires examination is, whether the Centralized Services Agreement is ancillary or subsidiary to the License Agreement. In our view, the answer to the aforesaid question would be in the negative. Cle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the assessee s case, the Revenue cannot rely on the said Articles to support its case at this stage during the course of appellate proceedings before the Tribunal. Keeping in view that the issues sought to be raised by the Revenue in these additional grounds are purely legal and all the facts relevant to consider and adjudicate the same are on record, we. however, find no merits in the objection raised by the learned, counsel for the assessee and admitting the additional grounds raised by the Revenue, we now proceed to consider and decide the issues raised in these additional grounds also on merits. In support of the Revenue s case that the impugned amount received by the assessee from the Indian hotels/clients was in the nature of royalty or fees for included services as per the DTAA between India and America, reliance thus has been placed by it mainly on the provisions of Articles 12(3)(a) as well as 12(4)(r/) and 12(4)( b). Article 12(3){b) being specifically applicable only to payments received for the use of or the right to use of any equipment of industrial, commercial or scientific nature, in any case, is not applicable to the facts of the present case. It is, theref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rstood by both the sides. Even the use of trademark, trade names etc. of the assessee-company by the Indian hotel /clients was an integral part of this arrangement and such use was allowed at no cost as expressly provided in the relevant agreements. Moreover the rationale behind providing such use at no cost has been explained on behalf of the assessee which is found to be satisfactory by us for the detailed reasons given in the foregoing portion of this order. Having regard to all these aspects, we have come to a conclusion that the various services rendered by the assessee to enable it to complete efficiently and effectively the job undertaken by it as an integrated business arrangement to provide the services relating to advertising, publicity and sales promotion including reservations of the Indian hotels worldwide in mutual interest cannot be relied upon by picking and choosing the same in isolation so as to say that part of the consideration received by the assessee, as attributable to the said services, was in the nature of royalties or fees for included services . Such an approach adopted by the Revenue authorities, in our opinion, was neither permissible in law nor prac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yment for services not containing any technology, are required to be treated as outside the scope of fees for technical services . It was further held by the Tribunal that the scope of fees for technical services under Article 12(4)(b ) does not cover consultancy services unless these services are technical in nature. 76. In the case of Raymond Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2003] 86 ITD 791. Mumbai Bench of ITAT held that the normal, plain and grammatical meaning of the language employed using the expressions making available and making use of is that the mere rendering of services is not roped in unless the person utilizing the services is able to make use of the technical knowledge etc. by himself in his business or for his own benefit and without recourse to the performer of the services in future. The technical knowledge, experience, skill etc. must remain with the person utilizing the services even after the rendering of the services has come to an end. The fruits of the services should remain available to the person utilizing the services in some concrete shape such as technical knowledge, experience, skill etc. 77. As already observed, a close reading of the relevant a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for imparting of any information concerning technical, industrial, commercial or scientific knowledge, experience or skill. The decision of Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of Nayveli Lignite Corpn. Ltd. (supra) and that of Hon ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Klayman Porcelains Ltd. (supra) fully support this view. Even the decision of Authority for Advance Ruling in the case of Rotem Co. In re [2005] 279 1TR 165 (AAR - New Delhi) is to the similar effect wherein after discussing the various judicial pronouncements, it was held that the principle which emerges from the various decisions is that in a contract for manufacture, installation, sale or supply of goods, the element of services will always be present and where such services are inextricably linked with manufacture, installation, sale or supply, they cannot be evaluated for the purpose of FTS. It is only where services are separable and independent that the FTS will be assessable. In the present case, the services sought to be treated as fees for technical services or fees for included services were of ancillary or auxiliary in nature and being integral part of the job undertaken by the assessee-compa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es promotion undertaken by the assessee-company. Moreover, the said use was allowed for mutual benefit and the exact benefits derived by the assessee- company from such use have already been discussed by us. As expressly provided in the relevant agreements, it was agreed that no cost is to be paid by the Indian hotels/clients to the assessee-company for such use and the entire payment/consideration was on account of the services rendered in relation to advertisement, publicity etc. This was the arrangement between the parties as is evident from the relevant terms and conditions of the agreements and this is the way in which both the sides had apparently understood and acted upon such arrangement. It was thus neither desirable nor possible to apportion any portion of the consideration received by the assessee-company from the Indian hotels/clients towards use of trademark, trade name etc. by the Indian hotels/clients. Having regard to all these facts and circumstances of the case borne out from the record including especially the relevant agreements between the parties, we find it difficult to accept the stand taken by the Revenue that the payments received by the assessee-company f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, the observations of learned Commissioner (Appeals) that the applicability of Article 12(4)(a) was never examined has to be rejected at the threshold. In fact, we are constrained to observe, learned Commissioner (Appeals), being conscious of the fact that the centralized service fee received by the assessee cannot be treated as FIS under Article 12(4)(b) due to failure of make available condition, has made an unsuccessful attempt to bring it within the ambit of Article 12(4)(a) of the Treaty and in the processes has misrepresented certain facts. 25. Be that as it may, the fact on record reveal that the taxability of centralized services fee as FIS is a recurring issue between the assessee and the Revenue from the past years. It is relevant to observe, while deciding the issue in assessment year 2010-11, the Tribunal in ITA No.202/Del./2016, dated 28.09.2017, has held as under: 5. We have heard the ld. Authorized Representative of the parties to the appeal, gone through the documents relied upon and orders passed by the revenue authorities below in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. Ld. DR for the revenue relied upon the order of the AO. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee were incidental to main service- Tribunal thus rightly concluded that the payments received were neither in the nature of royalty under s. 9(l)(vi), Expln. 2 not in the nature of fee for technical services under s. 9(1) (vii), Expln. 2, but business income and assessee not having any PE in India such business income was not taxable in India- j There was nothing on record to show that the agreement was a colourable device- Such findings of fact having not been challenged as perverse, no substantial question of law arose out of the order of the Tribunal 9. So, following the decision rendered by Hon ble Delhi High Court in case of Director of Income-tax vs. Sheraton International Inc. (supra), we are of the considered view that the revenue received by the assessee for providing centralized services is not in the nature of Fee for Technical Services (FTS) u/s 9( I )(vi) Explanation 2, but it is a business income. Since the assessee is not having any PE in India, its business income earned is not taxable in India. under:- 10. So, in view of what has been discussed above, we find no illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the Id. CIT (A), hence present ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ments. However, in the appeals before us, there are no such findings by the departmental authorities which can demonstrate that for all practical purposes the License Fee Agreement and Centralized Services Agreement are to be construed as one agreement and has been so understood by the Indian clients. The case of JC Bamford Excavators Ltd. (supra) is also factually distinguishable. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the decisions cited by learned Departmental Representative would be of no help to advance the case of the Revenue. 29. In view of the aforesaid, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition. 8. In fact, while dealing with the issue of applicability of Article 12(4)(a) qua the present assessees in the very same order, the Tribunal has held as under : 31. The present appeals stand in a slightly different factual footing, as, in contrast to the other assesses, in the present case, the assessees have entered into a single agreement with the Indian hotel owners to operate hotels in India under their respective brand names. The agreements also provide for rendering of hotel related services by the assessees, such as, marketing, reservation and al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cense. Even, the quantum of service fee received if compared to the royalty income, would not make it ancillary and subsidiary so as to make it FIS under article 12(4(a) of the treaty. In our view, service fee received by the assessees would clearly fit in to the illustration given in example 2 of MoU to India-USA DTAA. 33. Therefore, after in depth analysis of the relevant facts arising in these appeals, the agreement between the assessees and the Indian hotels and other materials on record, we are of the view that our reasoning given in case of Starwood Hotels Resorts Worldwide Inc. in ITA No.2011/Del/2019, in the earlier part of the order, would equally apply to these appeals, as well, as it cannot be said that the payment received towards centralized service fee is ancillary and subsidiary to the license fee. Accordingly, we delete the additions. 9. It is observed, the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal has been upheld by the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court while dismissing the appeals filed by the Revenue. In fact, in case of Country Inn and Suits, one of the appellants before us, the Tribunal in assessment year 2018- 19 has decided the issue in ITA No. 1001/De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
