2016 (7) TMI 1432 - AT - Income Tax

Benefit of the non-discrimination clause of the India-Korea DTAA - taxing the Appellant s income @ 40% (plus surcharge and education cess) instead of at the rate applicable to a resident taxpayer - Held that - This issue has been consistently decided against the assessee wherein it has been held that assessee s income would be taxed at the rate of 40% plus surcharge and education cess, instead of at the rate applicable to resident taxpayers. The Tribunal discussed the entire issue in detail after considering the assessee s submissions on Article 25 of the DTAA between India and Korea and held that rate of tax would be @ 40%. Accordingly, Ground No. 1 is dismissed. Disallowance of software charges paid by the Bank - non-deduction of tax at source under section 40(a)(i) - Held that - We hold that the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS on such payment. Therefore, no disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i) is called for in the present case. See Infrasoft Ltd. 2013 (11) TMI 1382 - DELHI HIGH COURT

Summary

Issues:
1. Applicable tax rate under India-Korea Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).
2. Disallowance of software charges for non-deduction of tax at source.

Issue 1: Applicable tax rate under DTAA
The appeal was against the final assessment order under sections 143(3) and 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee challenged the tax rate application, seeking the benefit of the non-discrimination clause of the India-Korea DTAA. The Tribunal, after considering past decisions against the assessee, upheld the tax rate of 40% plus surcharge and education cess, dismissing the appeal. The Tribunal analyzed the DTAA provisions and concluded that the rate of tax would indeed be 40% for the assessee, not 30% as claimed.

Issue 2: Non-deduction of taxes on software charges
The dispute involved the disallowance of software charges paid without tax deduction at source under section 40(a)(i) of the Act. The assessee made payments to a Korean entity for software without TDS. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated the payment as "Royalty," necessitating TDS deduction. The assessee argued that the payment was for software purchase, not royalty, citing lack of clarity in the law at the time of payment. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, emphasizing that the law, as amended later, could not retrospectively apply to impose TDS liability. Relying on precedents and the absence of a clear provision mandating TDS at the time of payment, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that no disallowance under section 40(a)(i) was warranted. The Tribunal also distinguished the Karnataka High Court's decision, opting to follow the Delhi High Court's interpretation on similar matters.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the tax rate decision under the DTAA but ruled in favor of the assessee regarding the non-deduction of taxes on software charges, allowing the appeal partially.