9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (12) TMI 761 - AT - Income TaxReimbursement of salary cost treated as fees for technical services Royalty u/s 9(1)(vii) Article 12 of Indo-US DTAA - Whether the payment received by the assessee on account of reimbursement of cost of salary paid to the Seconded employee, constitutes fees for included services (FIS) within the meaning of Article 12(4) of India-US DTAA, that is, it is taxable in India and hence TDS u/s 195 of the Act was required to be deducted - Held that - The assessee is a tax resident of USA and is providing support services to various Indian companies, who are subsidiaries - the salary paid to the seconded employees by the parent company, the TDS has been already been deducted u/s 192 of the Act, which has been credited to the Government of India account revenue relied upon M/s. Centrica India Offshore Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Income Tax-I & Others 2014 (5) TMI 154 - DELHI HIGH COURT wherein it has been held that reimbursement of costs or re-payment, is fees for technical services . If there is a PE, then Royalty or FIS cannot be taxed under Article 12, albeit only under Article 7 of the DTAA - DTAA benefit has been availed by the assessee and therefore, treaty benefit has to be given to the assessee for granting relief - the seconded employees will constitute Service PE of the assessee in India and in that case any payment received on account of rendering of service of such employees will have to be governed under Article 7 as per unequivocal terms of para 6 of Article 12 - Thus, the ratio laid down in the decision of M/s. Centrica India Offshore Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Income Tax-I & Others 2014 (5) TMI 154 - DELHI HIGH COURT Hon ble Delhi High Court, will not help the case of the revenue, in any manner because under the concept of PE, FIS cannot be taxed under Article 12, but only as a business profit under Article 7 thus, the payment made by the Indian entity to the assessee on account of reimbursement of salary cost of the seconded employees will have to be seen and examined under Article 7 only, that is, while computing the profits under Article 7, payment received by the assessee is to be treated as revenue receipt and any cost incurred has to be allowed as deduction because salary is a cost to the assessee which is to be allowed thus, the AO is directed to compute the payment strictly under terms of Article 7 and not under Article 12 of the DTAA Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the assessee rendered services to Indian companies. 2. Whether the reimbursement of salary cost received by the assessee is taxable as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. Whether the reimbursement of salary cost is taxable as Fees for Included Services (FIS) under Article 12 of the Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and USA. 4. Whether the CIT(A) erred in not passing a reasoned order regarding the reimbursement of salary cost as FIS under Article 12 of the DTAA. Detailed Analysis: 1. Rendering of Services to Indian Companies: The Assessing Officer (AO) held that the assessee, a US resident company, rendered services to its Indian subsidiaries through seconded employees. The AO noted that the employees were highly qualified and provided specialized services, which constituted managerial and consultancy services, thus falling under the definition of 'Fee for Technical Services' (FTS). The AO's reasoning included the lack of a secondment agreement and the assessee's responsibility for the employees' HR and administrative matters. 2. Taxability under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961: The AO treated the reimbursement of salary cost as taxable under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, considering it as FTS. The AO argued that the services provided by the deputed employees involved technical knowledge and skills, making the reimbursement taxable under domestic law. The CIT(A) upheld this view, stating that the assessee failed to demonstrate that the cost was reimbursed 'as such' and without any markup. 3. Taxability under Article 12 of the DTAA between India and USA: The AO also held that the reimbursement of salary cost was taxable under Article 12(4) of the India-US DTAA as FIS. The AO argued that the services rendered by the deputed employees made available technical knowledge, experience, skill, and know-how to the Indian subsidiaries. The CIT(A) agreed, stating that the nature of the job performed by the deputed persons constituted technical services under the DTAA. 4. Reasoned Order by CIT(A): The assessee contended that the CIT(A) did not provide a reasoned order regarding the treatment of the reimbursement as FIS under the DTAA. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, stating that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the reimbursement was merely a cost recovery without any markup. Tribunal's Findings: Service PE and Article 12(6) of the DTAA: The Tribunal considered the argument that the seconded employees constituted a Service Permanent Establishment (PE) of the assessee in India. Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Morgan Stanley & Co., the Tribunal noted that if the seconded employees are considered a Service PE, then the taxability of the payment should be examined under Article 7 (Business Profits) of the DTAA, not under Article 12. Article 12(6) of the DTAA states that if royalties or FIS are attributable to a PE, they should be taxed under Article 7. Reimbursement as Business Profit: The Tribunal concluded that the reimbursement of salary cost should be treated as a business profit under Article 7 of the DTAA. The salary paid by the assessee is a cost incurred, which should be allowed as a deduction while computing the business profit of the PE in India. Consequently, the payment received by the assessee for the reimbursement of salary cost is not taxable as FIS under Article 12 but should be computed under Article 7 of the DTAA. Conclusion: The Tribunal directed the AO to compute the payment received by the assessee strictly under the terms of Article 7 of the DTAA and not under Article 12. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the grounds raised by the assessee were treated as allowed. The Tribunal's decision emphasized that the reimbursement of salary cost by the Indian subsidiaries to the assessee does not constitute FIS and should be considered under the business profits provision of the DTAA.
|
