Tribunal Rules No Tax Deduction Required for Reimbursement to HK Company, Not Considered Fees for Technical Services.

The Tribunal determined that the remittance made by the assessee to the HK company was purely a reimbursement of pre-bid expenses and did not constitute fees for technical services (FTS). Consequently, the remittance did not contain any income element, and the assessee was not liable to deduct tax under section 195(1) of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal allowed the cross-objection filed by the assessee and dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue, aligning with the view that no tax deduction at source was required on the reimbursement.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the remittance to the HK company was in the nature of reimbursement or fees for technical services (FTS).
2. Whether the assessee was liable to deduct tax under section 195(1) of the Income-tax Act on the remittance.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Nature of Remittance: Reimbursement vs. Fees for Technical Services (FTS)

The primary issue was whether the remittance made by the assessee to Distacom Communications (HK) Ltd. (HK company) was reimbursement of pre-bid expenses or fees for technical services (FTS). The Assessing Officer (AO) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] had differing views on this matter.

- Assessing Officer's View:
- The AO considered the remittance as FTS under section 9(1)(vii) read with Explanation 2 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which defines FTS as any consideration for rendering managerial, technical, or consultancy services.
- The AO argued that the HK company acted as an agent for the assessee in Hong Kong, and the consultancy services procured by the HK company were ultimately for the benefit of the assessee.

- CIT(A)'s View:
- The CIT(A) agreed with the AO that the HK company did not have expertise in preparing bids and had engaged another consultancy firm for the same.
- However, the CIT(A) held that only the income element in the remittance should be taxed and estimated this income element at 20% of the remittance.

- Tribunal's Analysis:
- The Tribunal examined the facts and noted that the HK company did not render any technical services directly to the assessee. Instead, it engaged another consultancy firm and sought reimbursement for the expenses incurred.
- The Tribunal emphasized that reimbursement of expenses does not have an income element imbedded in it and cannot be considered as FTS. This position was supported by various judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court's judgment in Transmission Corpn. of AP Ltd. v. CIT and the Delhi High Court's ruling in CIT v. Industrial Engg. Projects (P.) Ltd.
- The Tribunal concluded that the remittance was purely a reimbursement of pre-bid expenses and did not constitute FTS.

2. Tax Deduction under Section 195(1):

The second issue was whether the assessee was liable to deduct tax under section 195(1) on the remittance made to the HK company.

- Assessing Officer's View:
- The AO held that the entire remittance was subject to tax deduction at source (TDS) at the rate of 30% as per section 115A of the Income-tax Act, considering it as FTS.

- CIT(A)'s View:
- The CIT(A) directed the assessee to deduct tax at 30% on 20% of the remittance, estimating the income element at 20%.

- Tribunal's Analysis:
- The Tribunal referred to section 195(1), which mandates TDS only on the income element in a remittance.
- The Tribunal reiterated that reimbursement of expenses does not contain any income element and, therefore, does not attract TDS under section 195(1).
- The Tribunal also noted that section 44D, which deals with the computation of income by way of royalties, etc., for foreign companies, was not relevant at the remittance stage but only at the assessment stage.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal concluded that the remittance made by the assessee to the HK company was purely a reimbursement of pre-bid expenses without any income element. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to deduct tax under section 195(1) on the remittance. The cross-objection filed by the assessee was allowed, and the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.

---