2015 (10) TMI 486 - HC - Income Tax

Interpretation of section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Article 12(4) of the Indo German Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement - Held that - The nature of work is that the assessee is approached by certain parties for issuance of this standard certificate. The process of evaluation in the form of audit of activities undertaken by the clients is carried out through the audit parties of the assessee. Based on the report of such audit party, a certificate to individual clients/applicants are issued. This is after reviewing the report and several stages of audit work which has been carried out. The certificates are issued for specific and certain period. These are neither technical nor managerial nor consultancy services. There is no advice given but insofar as this activity is concerned, the record indicates that the audit work and certification would not come within the realm of fees for technical services. In the circumstances, there is nothing in the activities which could enable the revenue to bring them within the purview of section 9 (1)(vii) and Article 12(4) of Indo German Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. There is a finding of fact and which is rendered after examination of the assessee s records and the service and their nature. Having analysed all this, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee s services are not of the nature falling within statutory provision. In these circumstances, the findings of fact at paragraph 9 and 10.3 of the order under challenge cannot be termed as perverse or vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record. It is fairly conceded that once the fees are not falling within above provisions, then, further question and of applying section 44D and Section 115A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 would not arise.

Summary

Issues involved:
Appeal challenging ITAT order on misinterpretation of tax provisions - Nature of services provided by the assessee - Certification services not falling under technical services - Application of Indo German Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement - Applicability of Section 44D and Section 115A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
1. The appeal by the revenue challenges the ITAT order reversing the AO and Commissioner's decisions. The main argument revolves around the misinterpretation of section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Article 12(4) of the Indo German Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. The revenue contends that the services provided by the assessee should be considered technical or consultancy in nature, not merely certification services as portrayed by the assessee. The Tribunal's conclusion that the fees received are not for technical services is disputed, emphasizing the international quality standards met through certification. However, the Tribunal's finding is based on a thorough examination of the services provided and the nature of certification, leading to the rejection of revenue's arguments.

2. The services rendered by the assessee involve certification processes for various international standards like ISO 9001/2, ISO 14001, QS 9000, etc. Clients approach the assessee for certification, which involves audits and issuance of certificates based on audit reports. The certificates are specific to individual clients and valid for a certain period. Despite the audit process involved, the Tribunal determined that these services do not fall under technical, managerial, or consultancy services, as no advice is provided. This factual finding, supported by the examination of records, led the Tribunal to conclude that the services do not fall within the purview of section 9(1)(vii) and Article 12(4) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement.

3. The Tribunal's decision was based on a factual analysis of the nature of services provided by the assessee, which did not align with the revenue's arguments. The Tribunal's findings at paragraph 9 and 10.3 of the order were deemed not perverse or vitiated by any error of law apparent on the record. Consequently, the applicability of Section 44D and Section 115A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 did not arise once the fees were found not to fall under the relevant provisions. The judgment also referenced a previous case to support the conclusion that none of the questions raised constituted substantial questions of law, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the ITAT's decision, emphasizing the factual analysis of the services provided by the assessee and the inapplicability of the tax provisions invoked by the revenue. The judgment highlights the importance of factual findings in determining the tax implications of specific services and reaffirms the principle that not all services provided necessarily fall within the ambit of taxable categories.