Cross-border service payments and stock valuation rules determine tax deduction, disallowance, and consequential opening stock adjustment.

Cross-border sales and marketing payments to Marriott International, including expense reimbursements, were treated as not chargeable to tax in India because the services were rendered outside India and the treaty's make-available condition for technical services was not satisfied, so deduction at source and disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) were not sustainable. Inventory valuation was required to follow the settled cost-or-net-realisable-value, whichever is lower, principle under ordinary commercial accounting and section 145; the High Court compromise price was not treated as open-market value, so the closing stock addition was upheld. The opening stock of the succeeding year was correspondingly to be adjusted to match the revised closing stock.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether payments made to Marriott International for sales and marketing services and reimbursement of expenses were chargeable to tax in India so as to attract deduction of tax at source and disallowance under section 40(a)(ia); (ii) Whether the closing stock of iron ore had been correctly valued at the rate fixed under the High Court compromise order or was liable to be revalued at current cost; (iii) Whether the opening stock of the succeeding year was required to be correspondingly adjusted.

Issue (i): Whether payments made to Marriott International for sales and marketing services and reimbursement of expenses were chargeable to tax in India so as to attract deduction of tax at source and disallowance under section 40(a)(ia).

Analysis: The payments for sales and marketing services were examined against the domestic law definitions of royalty and fees for technical services, and also against the Indo-US DTAA. The services were rendered outside India and did not involve transfer of rights, use of intellectual property, or rendering of managerial, technical or consultancy services in India. The treaty requirement of making available technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or technical design was not satisfied. The reimbursement of expenses was also treated as not carrying any income element.

Conclusion: The payments were not chargeable to tax in India and the disallowance was not sustainable. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the closing stock of iron ore had been correctly valued at the rate fixed under the High Court compromise order or was liable to be revalued at current cost.

Analysis: Stock valuation had to conform to the settled principle of valuing inventory at cost or net realisable value, whichever is lower, in accordance with ordinary commercial accounting and section 145. The Court treated the High Court-fixed price as arising from a family settlement and not as market price in the open market. It held that the assessee had not correctly applied that price to the relevant inventory and that the closing stock could not be valued on the footing contended by the assessee. The challenge to the stock addition therefore failed.

Conclusion: The addition made by revaluing the closing stock was upheld. This issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the opening stock of the succeeding year was required to be correspondingly adjusted.

Analysis: A change in closing stock valuation affects the opening stock of the next year, and the matter was treated as consequential to the valuation finding for the year under appeal. Since the valuation issue was upheld for the year in question, the corresponding opening stock required adjustment for the succeeding year.

Conclusion: The opening stock of the succeeding year was directed to be taken at the same value as the adjusted closing stock. This issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's appeals failed, the assessee obtained relief on the tax deduction and consequential stock-opening adjustment issues, and the stock-valuation addition for the relevant year was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: For cross-border service payments, tax deduction is attracted only when the payment is chargeable to tax under domestic law or the applicable treaty, and inventory must be valued on a bona fide, legally supportable basis consistent with the settled rule of cost or net realisable value, whichever is lower.

---