9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (12) TMI 324 - AT - Income TaxValidity of reopening of case under 147 - Held That - It is clearly seen from the records that the return was merely processed and accepted initially. After recording proper reasons, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148.Since no original assessment was completed there is ample scope to reopen the case. Adequacy of reasons cannot be questioned. Reliance placed on Janardan Dwarakadas(Mumbai High Court) Whether Consideration received for supplying the Repair Technical Document are in nature of fee for technical Service liable to tax deduction - Held That - Drawings and designs were passed on along with other technical information which are essential for carrying out repair works on the submarine. he services were rendered separately by deputing personnel. There is no reason to spilt the transaction except for the purpose of tax. The personnel could not have carried out the repair works without the RTDs. In so far as the technical information supplied is utilized in the contracting state, there is necessity to tax the same.Decided against assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of notice issued under section 148 of the Act. 2. Nature/taxability of the amount received by the assessee for supplying technical materials to M/s HSL. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Notice Issued Under Section 148: The first issue pertains to the validity of the reopening of the assessment by issuing notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08. The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) upheld the reopening of the assessment, noting that the return was merely processed initially, and after recording proper reasons, the Assessing Officer issued the notice under section 148. It was emphasized that the courts cannot question the adequacy of the reasons but can only look into the link between the material on record and the formation of belief for reopening the assessment. The DRP cited several case laws to support the reopening, including Rakesh Agarwal v. ACIT, Ram Prasad v. ITO, and CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. The DRP concluded that since no original assessment was completed, there was ample scope to reopen the case, and the argument that reopening is not tenable in law was deemed incorrect. Upon review, the tribunal found no infirmity in the observations of the DRP and rejected the ground raised by the assessee on this issue, affirming that the reopening of the assessment was valid. 2. Nature/Taxability of the Amount Received for Supplying Technical Materials: The second issue concerns the nature and taxability of the amounts received by the assessee, M/s FSUE Rosoboronexport (ROE), from M/s Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. (HSL) for supplying technical documents. The assessee argued that the technical documents supplied were "goods" and that the transaction of sale was completed outside India, thus not liable to Indian income tax. The documents supplied included "Repair Technical Documents" and a "Detailed Project Report" (DPR), which were delivered in the form of bound manuals. The DRP and the tribunal examined whether the amounts received could be considered "fee for technical services" under section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act. The tribunal noted that the residential status of M/s ROE is "Non-Resident" and under section 5(2), the income of a non-resident includes income received or deemed to be received in India or income that accrues or arises in India. Section 9 deems certain types of income, including fees for technical services, to accrue or arise in India. Since M/s HSL, a resident, paid the amounts for services utilized in its business in India, the tribunal held that the income should be deemed to accrue or arise in India. The tribunal rejected the assessee's reliance on the Supreme Court's decision in Tata Consultancy Services, which was rendered under the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, stating that the meaning of "goods" varies from statute to statute. The tribunal observed that technical services do not lose their character if reduced to writing in bound manuals, using examples of architectural plans and legal opinions. The tribunal further noted that the "Detailed Project Report" and "Repair Technical Documents" were tailor-made for M/s HSL, requiring domain expertise and specific to the needs of M/s HSL. The tribunal concluded that the amounts received by M/s ROE were in the nature of "fee for technical services" and thus taxable under the Indian Income-tax Act. Conclusion: The tribunal upheld the reopening of the assessment under section 148 and confirmed that the amounts received by M/s ROE from M/s HSL for supplying technical documents were taxable as "fee for technical services" under the Indian Income-tax Act. Both appeals of the assessee were dismissed.
|
