2015 (4) TMI 711 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Ruling: Sections 194-I, 194J, 194C Applicability Decided

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, confirming the applicability of section 194-I to rental payments and setting aside the applicability of section ... Short deduction of TDS - CIT (Appeals) in confirming applicability of section 194J to management fees, section 194-I to rentals and section 194C to handling charges - whether payment made to M/s. Tolaram & Sons towards rentals, management fees and handling charges was by virtue of a common contract of providing for indivisible services to the appellant? - Held that:- If the payments are made for composite services as is the case in M/s. Ketki Enterprises, our decision would have been different. In this case, the payment made is described as 'rentals' paid for premises owned by the assessee and specifications are earmarked. In these facts, the arrangement including the agency services agreement, in our opinion, will fall under the definition of 'rent' providing in section 194C of the Act. Therefore, the decisions relied upon by learned counsel in the case of National Panasonic India P. Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2005 (2) TMI 458 - ITAT DELHI-E ] is distinguishable on facts. Accordingly, we confirm the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on this issue. Regarding the management fee payment the assessee heavily relied on the decision of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare Ltd. v. ITO [2006 (10) TMI 259 - ITAT DELHI]. In this regard, we have examined clause 5 of the agreement and the services rendered by the payee which are narrated in sub-clauses from '(a) to (w)' of clause 5 of the agreement and noticed that none of the services constitutes any professional or technical services as mentioned in section 194J of the Act. In fact, the order of the Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) is not clear as to whether these payments are considered by the Revenue as either for professional services or for technical service. They do not have clarity. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) summarily confirmed the applicability of the provisions of section 194J to these payments and approach of the Revenue is not appreciated. Therefore, in our opinion, the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) should be set aside on this issue and claim of the assessee should be allowed. - Decided partly in favour of assessee. There is a reference to 'handling charges' in the grounds. The same were claimed by the assessee and treated by the Revenue in accordance with section 194C of the Act. Therefore, there is nothing for us to decide. Accordingly, ground Nos. 2 and 3 are dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Applicability of section 194J to management fees.2. Applicability of section 194-I to rentals.3. Applicability of section 194C to handling charges.4. Determination of composite payments under a single contract for indivisible services.Detailed Analysis:1. Applicability of Section 194J to Management Fees:The assessee contended that the management fees paid to M/s. Tolaram & Sons should be subject to section 194C, not section 194J, as the services rendered do not fall under 'professional service' or 'technical service'. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld the Assessing Officer's view that the management fees were for professional services, thus falling under section 194J. However, the Tribunal noted that the services rendered did not constitute professional or technical services as per section 194J. The Tribunal found the Revenue's approach lacking clarity and set aside the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)'s order on this issue, allowing the assessee's claim.2. Applicability of Section 194-I to Rentals:The assessee argued that rental payments to M/s. Tolaram & Sons were part of composite services under a single contract and should be governed by section 194C. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) disagreed, stating that the payments were clearly for rent and should be subject to section 194-I. The Tribunal upheld this view, noting that the depot agreement explicitly earmarked the rental payments and the premises were specified. Thus, the Tribunal confirmed that the payments fell under the definition of 'rent' as per section 194-I.3. Applicability of Section 194C to Handling Charges:The handling charges were treated in accordance with section 194C by both the assessee and the Revenue. Since there was no dispute regarding the handling charges, the Tribunal did not make any specific ruling on this issue.4. Determination of Composite Payments Under a Single Contract for Indivisible Services:The assessee argued that the payments for rent and management fees were part of a single contract for indivisible services. The Tribunal examined the depot agreement and found that the payments were clearly earmarked as rentals and management fees. The Tribunal noted that if the payments were for composite services, the decision might have been different. However, given the clear earmarking of payments, the Tribunal concluded that the provisions of sections 194-I and 194J were applicable as determined by the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals).Conclusion:The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, confirming the applicability of section 194-I to rental payments and setting aside the applicability of section 194J to management fees. The handling charges were treated under section 194C, and the other grounds raised were dismissed as either argumentative or of academic significance.