Appeal allowed: Payment to non-resident not taxable under tax treaty

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, ruling that the payment for professional services to a non-resident company was not taxable as Fees for Technical Services or Royalty under the India-Philippines Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. Consequently, the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS was deleted, and no interest under section 234B was applicable. The decision was issued on August 3, 2018.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance under section 40(a)(i) on account of non-deduction of TDS for payments made for professional services obtained from a non-resident.
2. Classification of payment as 'Fees for Technical Services' (FTS) or 'Royalty' under the India-Philippines Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).
3. Application of Article 7 and Article 13 of the India-Philippines DTAA.
4. Applicability of section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961.
5. Consequential interest under section 234B of the Income-Tax Act, 1961.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance under section 40(a)(i) on account of non-deduction of TDS for payments made for professional services obtained from a non-resident:
The assessee, a company engaged in the development of computer software, made a payment of Rs. 5,660,370 to Stratpoint Technologies Inc., a company based in the Philippines, for gaming moderation services. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the deduction of this payment under section 40(a)(i) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, due to non-deduction of TDS, treating the payment as fees for technical services under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act.

2. Classification of payment as 'Fees for Technical Services' (FTS) or 'Royalty' under the India-Philippines Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA):
The assessee argued that the payment should be considered as business income under Article 7 of the India-Philippines DTAA, as there is no specific article dealing with FTS in the DTAA. The assessee contended that since Stratpoint did not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, the income was not chargeable to tax in India. The CIT(Appeals) upheld the AO's decision but also considered the payment as 'royalty' under Article 13 of the DTAA, which was contested by the assessee.

3. Application of Article 7 and Article 13 of the India-Philippines DTAA:
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(Appeals) could not simultaneously classify the payment as FTS and 'royalty'. It agreed with the assessee's argument that in the absence of a specific FTS clause in the DTAA, the payment should be treated as business income under Article 7. Since Stratpoint did not have a PE in India, the income could not be taxed in India. Additionally, the Tribunal found that the payment did not fall under the definition of 'royalty' in Article 13 of the DTAA, as it was for services rendered and not for the use of any intellectual property.

4. Applicability of section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961:
The Tribunal concluded that since the payment was not taxable in India under the DTAA, the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act were not applicable. Therefore, the disallowance made by the revenue authorities was not sustainable and was directed to be deleted.

5. Consequential interest under section 234B of the Income-Tax Act, 1961:
The Tribunal noted that the issue of interest under section 234B was purely consequential and directed the AO to provide consequential relief.

Conclusion:
The appeal of the assessee was allowed, with the Tribunal holding that the payment in question could not be taxed as FTS or 'royalty' in India under the India-Philippines DTAA. Consequently, there was no obligation to deduct tax at source under section 195, and the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was deleted. The interest under section 234B was directed to be adjusted accordingly. The judgment was pronounced on August 3, 2018.

---