TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the supervision charges received by a foreign company for work connected with a turnkey power project were taxable as fees for technical services under section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, or were assessable under the special regime of section 44BBB; (ii) whether interest under section 234B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was leviable where the receipts were subject to tax deduction at source.
Issue (i): Whether the supervision charges received by a foreign company for work connected with a turnkey power project were taxable as fees for technical services under section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, or were assessable under the special regime of section 44BBB.
Analysis: The contract and the sub-contract showed that the assessee's role, on the evidence produced, was confined to supervision of erection, testing, commissioning and related work. The record did not establish that the assessee itself carried on construction, assembly, erection or commissioning activities so as to bring the receipts within section 44BBB or within the exclusion in Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii). In the absence of proof of physical execution of such activities, the receipts were treated as consideration for supervision services and therefore as fees for technical services. The assessment under Article 7 of the DTAA read with section 44D and section 115A was upheld.
Conclusion: The receipts were not eligible for section 44BBB treatment and were taxable as fees for technical services; the finding of the lower authorities was sustained, against the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether interest under section 234B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was leviable where the receipts were subject to tax deduction at source.
Analysis: The receipts under the contract were liable to tax deduction at source under section 195, and tax had in fact been deducted. On that footing, and following the applicable Tribunal precedent, interest for default in advance tax was not leviable.
Conclusion: Interest under section 234B was not leviable and stood deleted, in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only in part: the taxability of the supervision receipts was upheld, while the levy of interest under section 234B was set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a foreign company's receipts under a turnkey project are shown only to arise from supervision services and not from actual construction, assembly, erection or commissioning work, the receipts do not fall within section 44BBB and are taxable as fees for technical services; however, interest under section 234B is not leviable when the income is subject to tax deduction at source.
TaxTMI 
