9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 116 - AT - Income TaxTDS u/s 195 - payment of professional fees outside India - non deduction of tds - disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - income accrued in India - PE in India - Held that - As decided in assessee s own case 2013 (11) TMI 188 - ITAT MUMBAI none of these payments which were not liable or chargeable to be taxed in India, no TDS was required to be deducted under section 195, therefore, the findings given by the Commissioner (Appeals) is factually and legally correct and, accordingly, the same is hereby affirmed. Ground raised by the Revenue is, thus, dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act for professional fees paid outside India without tax deduction under section 195. Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance under section 40(a)(i) for Professional Fees Paid Outside India Without TDS under section 195: The Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s decision to delete disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for professional fees paid to non-residents without tax deduction at source (TDS) under section 195. The primary contention was whether the CIT(A) was justified in holding that the disallowance could not be made since the tax was required to be deducted under section 195. Facts and Findings: - The assessee, a professional firm engaged in business advisory, taxation, and audit services, paid professional fees amounting to ?9,79,98,688 to non-residents without deducting tax at source. - The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the payments under section 40(a)(i) based on previous years' assessments (A.Y. 2008-09 and 2007-08), concluding that the assessee should have deducted tax under section 195. - The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's appeal, referencing earlier years' decisions (A.Y. 2001-02, 2004-05, 2007-08, and 2008-09) and sister concerns' cases (M/s. BSR & Co. LLP for A.Y. 2010-11 and 2011-12), holding that no TDS was required as the non-residents had no permanent establishment (PE) in India. Arguments by Assessee and Revenue: - The assessee argued that the issue was settled in their favor in earlier years, where it was established that audit and advisory services provided by non-residents without a PE in India were not liable for TDS under section 195, thus no disallowance under section 40(a)(i) was warranted. - The Revenue acknowledged the issue's prior resolution but relied on the grounds of appeal, emphasizing the need to assess the taxability of each payment independently. Tribunal's Decision: - The Tribunal reviewed rival submissions, material records, and previous decisions. It noted that identical issues were decided in favor of the assessee in earlier years. - The Tribunal referenced the decision in ITA No.1820/M/2009 (A.Y. 2004-05), which clarified that payments for services not resulting in the transfer of technical knowledge or skill, and where the non-residents had no PE in India, were not taxable and thus did not require TDS under section 195. - The Tribunal emphasized the Supreme Court's interpretation in G.E. India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd., which stated that TDS under section 195 is only applicable if the payment is chargeable to tax in India. - Following the principle of consistency and the precedent set by earlier decisions, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s order. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the payments made by the assessee to non-residents were not chargeable to tax in India as they did not result in the transfer of technical knowledge and the non-residents had no PE in India. Therefore, no TDS under section 195 was required, and the disallowance under section 40(a)(i) was correctly deleted by the CIT(A). Consequently, all four appeals by the Revenue were dismissed.
|
