Tribunal upholds CIT(A)'s order on professional fees tax disallowance

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal for A.Y. 2008-09, upholding the CIT(A)'s order that deleted the disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for professional fees paid outside India without deduction of tax at source. The Tribunal found that the payments made to non-resident entities for professional services were not chargeable to tax in India under the relevant Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements, leading to the deletion of the disallowance.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for professional fees paid outside India without deduction of tax at source.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 - Rs. 78,21,340/-:

Facts of the Case:
The assessee, a firm of Chartered Accountants, filed its return of income for A.Y. 2008-09 declaring an income of Rs. 43,35,31,620/-. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act, determining the income at Rs. 44,95,25,400/- due to certain additions and disallowances, including Rs. 78,21,340/- on account of professional fees paid outside India without deduction of tax at source.

Appeal to CIT(A):
The assessee appealed against the assessment, and the CIT(A) partially allowed the appeal, deleting the disallowance under section 40(a)(i).

Revenue's Appeal to ITAT:
The Revenue appealed to the ITAT, challenging the deletion of the disallowance under section 40(a)(i).

Tribunal's Findings:
The Tribunal examined the issue of disallowance under section 40(a)(i) for payments made to non-resident entities for professional services rendered outside India. The key points considered were:

i. Payments to KPMG LLP, USA and Nihal Dalvi, USA:
- The services rendered were related to taxation and audit, performed outside India.
- The Revenue contended these services were 'fees for technical services' (FTS) and required tax deduction at source under Article 12 of the Indo-USA DTAA.
- The Tribunal found no evidence that technical knowledge or skill was made available to the assessee, and the non-residents had no permanent establishment (PE) in India.
- The Tribunal relied on a previous decision in the assessee's case for A.Y. 2009-10, where similar payments were held not chargeable to tax in India, thus not requiring tax deduction at source.

ii. Payments to KPMG LLP, UK, Nelsons Solicitors, UK, and KPMG IFRG Ltd., UK:
- These entities also had no PE in India.
- The CIT(A) observed these payments fell under Article 15 of the Indo-UK DTAA for independent personal services, not chargeable to tax in India.
- The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings, referencing the previous decision for A.Y. 2009-10.

iii. Payment to KPMG, Ireland:
- The services were audit-related, rendered outside India.
- The Tribunal found these services fell under Article 14 of the India-Ireland DTAA for independent personal services, not chargeable to tax in India.
- The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the disallowance.

iv. Payment to Siddharta Siddharta & Widjaja, Indonesia:
- The services were audit-related, and the India-Indonesia DTAA did not define FTS.
- The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that these payments fell under Article 14 for independent personal services, not chargeable to tax in India.

Additional Consideration:
- Even if the services were considered FTS under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act, the Tribunal noted that the retrospective amendment by the Finance Act, 2010, would not impose a requirement to deduct tax at source on payments made before the amendment.
- The Tribunal referenced the decision in Channel Guide India Ltd. vs. ACIT, supporting the view that retrospective amendments should not create an impossible situation for the payer.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s order deleting the disallowance under section 40(a)(i).

General Grounds:
Grounds No. 2 and 3 were general and did not require adjudication.

Final Order:
The Revenue's appeal for A.Y. 2008-09 was dismissed, and the order was pronounced on 8th July 2016.

---