TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal vacates AO's order under Sec. 201(1) due to limitation issues and lack of action against payee.</h1> <h3>The Tata Power Co. Ltd. Corporate Center Versus Income Tax Officer (International Taxation) -TDS (2) Air India Building, Mumbai</h3> The Tata Power Co. Ltd. Corporate Center Versus Income Tax Officer (International Taxation) -TDS (2) Air India Building, Mumbai - TMI Issues Involved:1. Validity of the order passed by the AO under Sec. 201(1)/201(1A) r.w.s. 195 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Nature of payments made to Entec UK Ltd. as 'Fees for Technical Services' under the DTAA with the UK.3. Applicability of Article 7 read with Article 5.2(k) of the India-UK Treaty regarding 'Business Income.'4. Limitation period for passing an order under Sec. 201(1)/201(1A) r.w.s. 195.5. Action against the payee (Entec UK Ltd.) and its impact on the assessee's liability under Sec. 201(1)/201(1A).Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Order under Sec. 201(1)/201(1A) r.w.s. 195:The assessee challenged the validity of the order dated 31.10.2013 passed by the AO under Sec. 201(1)/201(1A) r.w.s. 195 on the grounds of limitation. The Tribunal observed that the order was passed beyond the prescribed time limit under the proviso to Sec. 201(3), which mandates a limitation period for passing such orders. The Tribunal relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Bharti Airtel Limited Vs. Union of India, which stated that the limitation period prescribed in Sec. 201(3) applies to both resident and non-resident deductees. Therefore, the order dated 31.10.2013 was deemed barred by limitation and was vacated.2. Nature of Payments to Entec UK Ltd.:The CIT(A) had held that the payments made to Entec UK Ltd. were in the nature of 'Fees for Technical Services' (FTS) under the DTAA with the UK. The assessee argued that the services rendered by a non-resident to an Indian payer, even if technical, should be considered as 'Business Income' if the non-resident does not make available any technology to the payer. However, since the order was struck down on the ground of limitation, the Tribunal did not adjudicate on this issue.3. Applicability of Article 7 and Article 5.2(k) of the India-UK Treaty:The CIT(A) had ruled that the payments to Entec did not fall under Article 7 read with Article 5.2(k) of the India-UK Treaty as 'Business Income' since Entec did not have a permanent establishment in India. The assessee contested this, arguing that the payments should be considered as 'Business Income' and not 'Fees for Technical Services.' Again, due to the order being vacated on jurisdictional grounds, the Tribunal did not address this issue.4. Limitation Period for Passing the Order:The assessee contended that the order was passed beyond the period specified by the proviso to Sec. 201(3) and beyond one year from the end of the financial year in which proceedings were initiated. The Tribunal noted that the proceedings under Sec. 201(1) were initiated by a notice dated 18.10.2013, and the order was passed on 31.10.2013. However, the Tribunal found that the order was indeed barred by limitation as it was passed beyond the prescribed period of four years from the end of the relevant financial year.5. Action Against the Payee:The assessee argued that since no action was taken against the payee (Entec UK Ltd.) and the time for taking such action had expired, no order under Sec. 201(1)/201(1A) could be passed. The Tribunal agreed, citing the 'Special Bench' decision in Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs. DCIT, which held that if no action is taken against the payee and the time limit for such action has expired, the payer cannot be treated as an assessee in default. Therefore, the order under Sec. 201(1)/201(1A) was invalidated on this ground as well.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, vacating the order passed by the AO under Sec. 201(1)/201(1A) r.w.s. 195 on the grounds of limitation and the absence of action against the payee. The merits of the case were not adjudicated as they were rendered academic due to the jurisdictional issues. The order was pronounced in the open court on 13.09.2019.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
