9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of foreign collaboration agreement for payment of technical know-how and services. Taxability of remittance under section 195(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Entertainment of additional grounds of appeal by the department. Classification of payment as salary or fees for technical services. Applicability of section 10(6)(vi) and section 9(1)(vii) in determining tax liability. Analysis: The case involved a dispute regarding the taxability of a remittance made by an Indian company to a Swiss company under a foreign collaboration agreement for technical know-how and services. The Income-tax Officer contended that the remittance constituted fees for technical services under section 9(1)(vi) and was subject to tax deduction at 40%. The company, however, claimed that the amount was for reimbursement of wages and social charges of foreign technicians and fell under the category of salary, exempt from tax under section 10(6)(vi). The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) sided with the company, holding that the payment was not for technical services but resembled salary, thus not attracting tax liability. The department appealed the decision, challenging the interpretation of the agreement and the taxability of the remittance. Additionally, the department sought to introduce additional grounds of appeal, arguing that section 196(2) did not apply and the company's petition under section 195(2) was misconceived. The Appellate Tribunal deliberated on the admissibility of these additional grounds, ultimately ruling in favor of the company due to procedural non-compliance by the department. Regarding the original ground of appeal, the Tribunal analyzed the collaboration agreement's provisions for technical know-how and services. It noted that the remittance in question was specifically for wages and social charges of foreign technicians, approved by the Government of India. The Tribunal determined that the payment constituted salary and not fees for technical services, aligning with the exemption under section 10(6)(vi) and the definition of income under section 9(1)(vii). Citing precedent cases and the distinct nature of the agreement's components, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, ruling against the department. In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the Commissioner's order and determining that the remittance was not taxable as fees for technical services but qualified as payment for salaries, falling outside the purview of tax liability under section 195 read with section 115A.
|
