Tax Tribunal Upholds Seconded Employees' Status

The CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee, concluding that the expatriates were seconded employees of the assessee company and not of its overseas AE. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing that the disallowance of the foreign component of salary costs was unjustified as the income earned through these expatriates was accepted and taxed. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, affirming that the expatriates played a crucial role in providing services and the disallowance of salary costs was unwarranted.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP) for reimbursement of salary costs to expatriate employees.
2. Examination of the agreement and role of expatriate employees in providing business support and project management services.
3. Disallowance of foreign component of salary costs by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO).
4. Acceptance of business support income and project management income by the TPO while disallowing corresponding salary costs.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP) for Reimbursement of Salary Costs to Expatriate Employees:

The primary issue revolves around the determination of the ALP for the reimbursement of salary costs to expatriate employees. The TPO determined the ALP of the reimbursement of salary cost as 'NIL' based on the absence of an agreement between the assessee company and its AE regarding the secondment of employees. The TPO also noted that the role of these expatriate employees in rendering business support services was not substantiated, and their services post-sale of the project were deemed incomprehensible.

2. Examination of the Agreement and Role of Expatriate Employees in Providing Business Support and Project Management Services:

The assessee company employed expatriates seconded by the Australian AE and was engaged in providing business support services to its AE and project management services to TBSL through these expatriate employees. The role of the expatriates, their professional qualifications, and the necessity of their services for project development were acknowledged by the TPO. However, the TPO questioned the arrangement post-sale of the project, suggesting that the expatriates should have been shifted to the payroll of the joint venture (TBSL).

3. Disallowance of Foreign Component of Salary Costs by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO):

The TPO allowed the local expenditure but disallowed the foreign component of the salary costs disbursed by the AE in Australia, determining the ALP of such costs as 'NIL'. The TPO's rationale was that there was no agreement or appointment letter between the assessee and the expatriates, and the services provided by these expatriates were not substantiated as benefiting the assessee company.

4. Acceptance of Business Support Income and Project Management Income by the TPO while Disallowing Corresponding Salary Costs:

The assessee company argued that the income earned from business support services and project management services, which was offered for tax and accepted by the Revenue Department, was generated through the employment of these expatriates. The CIT(A) noted that the same set of expatriates were responsible for providing these services, and the income earned from such services was duly accounted for and taxed. The CIT(A) found that the TPO's action of disallowing the foreign component of salary costs while accepting the income generated through these expatriates was unjust.

Judgment:

The CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee, concluding that the expatriates were seconded employees of the assessee company and not of its overseas AE. The CIT(A) held that the TPO's disallowance of the foreign component of salary costs was not justified, given that the income earned through these expatriates was accepted by the Revenue Department. The CIT(A) emphasized that the TPO cannot rewrite the terms of a commercial agreement and must consider the contractual obligations and the factual aspects presented.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings, noting that the expatriates were crucial for providing business support and project management services, and the income generated from these services was duly offered for tax. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, affirming that the disallowance of the foreign component of salary costs was unwarranted.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal dismissed all three appeals filed by the Revenue, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the reimbursement of salary costs to expatriate employees, including the foreign component, as the income generated through their services was duly taxed and accepted by the Revenue Department. The order was pronounced in the Open Court on 01st March 2018.

---