Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (2) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2017 (2) TMI 633 - AT - Income Tax


Issues Involved:
1. Whether payments made to Standard Chartered Bank (SCB), India to the assessee are payments for "Royalty" or "Fees for Technical Services (FTS)"?
2. Whether the benefits of Sec. 115A of the Act will be available to the assessee if the payments from SCB, India are held to be taxable as Royalty or/and FTS?
3. Whether the income should be taxed on gross receipts instead of net receipts?
4. Whether the assessee is entitled to tax credit for taxes paid?
5. Whether interest under section 234B of the Act is applicable?
6. Whether the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is valid?

Detailed Analysis:

1. Nature of Payments: Royalty or Fees for Technical Services (FTS)?
The primary issue was whether the payments made by SCB India to the assessee for data processing services constituted "Royalty" or "Fees for Technical Services (FTS)" under Section 9(1)(vi) and 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

- Royalty: The Assessing Officer (AO) argued that the payments were for the use of technology, data centers, infrastructure, connectivity, and application technology provided by the assessee to SCB India. The AO contended that this constituted "Royalty" as per Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vi). However, the Tribunal found that the assessee was merely providing data processing services using its own technology and infrastructure without transferring any right to SCB India. The Tribunal held that there was no use or right to use any process, model, design, invention, or equipment by SCB India, thus the payments did not qualify as "Royalty."

- FTS: The AO also classified the payments as FTS, emphasizing the technical and managerial services provided by the assessee. However, the Tribunal noted that the data processing services were automated and did not involve significant human intervention. It concluded that the services provided were standard facilities rather than technical or consultancy services requiring human involvement. Thus, the payments did not qualify as FTS.

2. Applicability of Section 115A:
The Tribunal noted that the issue of the rate of tax under Section 115A became academic since it had already concluded that the payments were not taxable in India as either Royalty or FTS. Therefore, the Tribunal did not delve into the specifics of whether the payments should be taxed at 20% or 10% under Section 115A.

3. Taxation on Gross vs. Net Receipts:
The assessee argued that the income should be taxed on net receipts after deducting expenses attributable to gross receipts. Since the Tribunal held that the payments were not taxable in India, this issue was rendered infructuous.

4. Tax Credit for Taxes Paid:
The Tribunal directed the AO to allow credit for taxes paid amounting to ?2 crores as per the directions given by the Tribunal in the stay petition.

5. Interest under Section 234B:
The Tribunal held that interest under Section 234B was not applicable, following the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of NGC Network Asia LLC, which stated that interest under Section 234B is not chargeable when the entire income is subject to tax deduction at source.

6. Penalty Proceedings under Section 271(1)(c):
The Tribunal dismissed this ground as premature since the penalty proceedings were only initiated and not concluded.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the payments made by SCB India to the assessee were neither "Royalty" nor "Fees for Technical Services" under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequently, the payments were not taxable in India. The Tribunal also directed the AO to allow tax credit for taxes paid and to delete the interest charged under Section 234B. The issue of penalty proceedings was dismissed as premature.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates