2002 (4) TMI 891 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

(a) Is the selling commission, underwriting commission, and management commission paid by the assessee to Merrill Lynch "fees for technical services" chargeable as income in India under section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act and the provisions of the double tax agreement with the UK?

(b) Can the services rendered by the lead manager and others in connection with the GDR issue be called "management, technical or consultancy services" within the meaning of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act?

(c) Assuming that the services fall within the aforementioned section, can they be considered as "technical services" within the meaning of the relevant article in the Double Tax Agreement with the UK?

(d) Was there a payment to or credit in favor of Merrill Lynch in order to attract section 195(1)?

(e) Can an order be passed under section 195(1) and if not, can an order be passed under section 201?

(f) Can the tax be recovered from the assessee company in the absence of a notice of demand?

(g) Was the levy of interest under section 201(1A) justified, even though the assessee acted bona fide and on the advice of its solicitors in not deducting the tax?

(h) Were the expenses reimbursed by the assessee chargeable to tax in India?

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

(a) Selling, Underwriting, and Management Commissions as "Fees for Technical Services":

- Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act and the Double Tax Agreement with the UK.

- Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court analyzed whether the commissions paid could be classified as "fees for technical services" and examined the nature of the services rendered.

- Key evidence and findings: The court considered the subscription agreements and the nature of services provided by Merrill Lynch and other managers.

- Application of law to facts: The court determined that the services rendered were managerial or consultancy services, thus falling under section 9(1)(vii).

- Treatment of competing arguments: The court rejected the "resale or subscription" and "finished package" theories proposed by the assessee.

- Conclusions: The commissions were deemed income by way of fees for technical services accruing in India.

(b) Services as "Management, Technical or Consultancy Services":

- Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 9(1)(vii) and Explanation 2 of the Income-tax Act.

- Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court found the services to be managerial or consultancy in nature.

- Key evidence and findings: The court noted the detailed services rendered by the managers before and after the subscription agreement.

- Application of law to facts: The court applied the definition of technical services to the facts of the case.

- Treatment of competing arguments: The court dismissed the argument that underwriting services were not technical services.

- Conclusions: The services were classified as managerial or consultancy services under section 9(1)(vii).

(c) Double Tax Agreement with UK:

- Relevant legal framework and precedents: Article 13.4(c) of the Double Tax Agreement with the UK.

- Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court analyzed whether the services "made available" technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how, or processes.

- Key evidence and findings: The court compared the UK agreement with other international agreements to interpret the meaning of "make available."

- Application of law to facts: The court found that no technical knowledge was made available to the assessee.

- Treatment of competing arguments: The court considered the MoU under the US DTA as an aid to interpretation.

- Conclusions: The payments did not fall within the definition of "fees for technical services" under the DTA with the UK.

(d) Payment or Credit to Merrill Lynch:

- Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 195(1) and the Explanation thereto.

- Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court examined whether the deduction of amounts from the sale proceeds constituted payment.

- Key evidence and findings: The court considered the accounting entries and the Supreme Court's ruling in J.B. Boda & Co. (P.) Ltd.

- Application of law to facts: The court found that the adjustment was equivalent to actual payment.

- Treatment of competing arguments: The court rejected the argument that no payment was made.

- Conclusions: The court held that there was a payment under section 195(1).

(e) Orders under Sections 195(1) and 201:

- Relevant legal framework and precedents: Sections 195 and 201 of the Income-tax Act.

- Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court analyzed the procedural aspects of passing orders under these sections.

- Key evidence and findings: The court considered the substance of the orders passed.

- Application of law to facts: The court found that an order under section 201 was valid.

- Treatment of competing arguments: The court addressed the procedural objections raised by the assessee.

- Conclusions: The court upheld the order under section 201.

(f) Recovery of Tax in Absence of Demand Notice:

- Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 156 of the Income-tax Act and relevant case law.

- Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court considered whether a demand notice was necessary for recovery.

- Key evidence and findings: The court relied on the Kerala High Court's judgment in Traco Cables Co. Ltd.

- Application of law to facts: The court found that the tax could be recovered without a demand notice.

- Treatment of competing arguments: The court addressed the assessee's contention regarding the absence of a demand notice.

- Conclusions: The court held that the tax could be recovered from the assessee.

(g) Levy of Interest under Section 201(1A):

- Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act.

- Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court considered whether the levy was justified.

- Key evidence and findings: The court examined the bona fides of the assessee's actions.

- Application of law to facts: The court found the levy of interest to be academic, given its conclusions on other issues.

- Treatment of competing arguments: The court considered the arguments regarding the assessee's bona fide belief.

- Conclusions: The court found the levy of interest to be academic.

(h) Taxability of Reimbursed Expenses:

- Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act.

- Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court analyzed whether reimbursed expenses were taxable.

- Key evidence and findings: The court considered the nature of the expenses.

- Application of law to facts: The court found the expenses were not taxable.

- Treatment of competing arguments: The court addressed the arguments regarding the taxability of reimbursed expenses.

- Conclusions: The court held that reimbursed expenses were not taxable in India.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

- "The services rendered by the lead managers are managerial or consultancy services within the meaning of section 9(1)(vii) r.w. Explanation 2."

- "The Double Tax Avoidance Agreement with UK applies to the present case and no technical knowledge, experience, skills, know-how or process etc. was 'made available' to the assessee-company by the non-resident managers."

- "The tax can be recovered from the assessee-company even without the service of a notice of demand."

- "Neither the management commission, nor the underwriting commission nor even the selling commission/concession would amount to fees for technical services within the meaning of the DTA with UK."

- "The reimbursement of expenses cannot be considered as taxable in India even under section 9(1)(vii)."