Tribunal rules in favor of assessee, rejects revenue's appeal on Fees for Technical Services

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal and dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on all issues. The Tribunal concluded that the reimbursements and payments in question did not constitute Fees for Technical Services (FTS) and were not subject to disallowance under the relevant sections of the Income Tax Act.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of Software and EDP expenses.
2. Disallowance of reimbursement of expenses under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act.
3. Disallowance of reimbursement of demurrage expenses.
4. Payment of license charges under section 40(a)(i) of the Act.
5. Reimbursement of salary costs and related relocation expenses.
6. Payment of inspection and survey fees.
7. Payment of membership and subscription fees, registration charges, training charges, conference, and seminar expenses.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Software and EDP Expenses:
The assessee challenged the disallowance of software and EDP expenses amounting to Rs. 14,05,007. The assessee argued that this issue was covered by the decision of the Hon’ble ITAT in the assessee’s own case (ITA No. 1271/M/2013 dated 20.12.2017). The ITAT had allowed similar expenses as revenue expenditure based on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Raychem RPG Ltd. (2012) 346 ITR 138 (Bom). Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s findings and allowed the assessee's claim.

2. Disallowance of Reimbursement of Expenses under Section 40(a)(ia):
The assessee contested the disallowance of reimbursement of demurrage expenses amounting to Rs. 2,59,99,105 under section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of tax at source under section 195. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, characterizing the reimbursement as fees for technical services (FTS). However, the Tribunal noted the change in legal precedent following the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT Vs. Dempo and Co. P. Ltd. (381 ITR 303), which overruled the earlier decision in Orient (Goa) Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s findings and allowed the assessee's claim.

3. Disallowance of Reimbursement of Demurrage Expenses:
Similar to the second issue, the demurrage expenses were disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of tax at source. The Tribunal, referencing the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT Vs. Dempo and Co. P. Ltd., concluded that the reimbursement did not constitute FTS under section 9(1)(vii) and allowed the assessee's claim.

4. Payment of License Charges under Section 40(a)(i):
The assessee challenged the disallowance of license charges for the purchase of software amounting to Rs. 1,87,220 under section 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of tax at source under section 195. The Tribunal referenced the decision in Shinhan Bank Vs. DDIT(IT) (76 Taxmann.com 42), which held that the amendment to section 9(1)(vi) by the Finance Act, 2012, was prospective and not applicable to the assessment year 2010-11. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s findings and allowed the assessee's claim.

5. Reimbursement of Salary Costs and Related Relocation Expenses:
The revenue challenged the allowance of the claim for reimbursement of salary costs and related relocation expenses amounting to Rs. 6,47,96,467. The CIT(A) held that these reimbursements did not constitute FTS and were liable to tax under section 192, not section 195. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), noting that the employees worked under the control of the assessee and the reimbursement was without any markup. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision.

6. Payment of Inspection and Survey Fees:
The revenue challenged the allowance of the claim for payment of inspection and survey fees amounting to Rs. 1,27,339. The CIT(A) held that these services did not make available any technical knowledge or skill to the assessee and thus did not constitute FTS under the India-Singapore DTAA. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), referencing the Karnataka High Court's decision in CIT Vs. De Beers India Mineral P. Ltd. (346 ITR 467) and the Mumbai Tribunal's decision in Linklaters LLP. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision.

7. Payment of Membership and Subscription Fees, Registration Charges, Training Charges, Conference, and Seminar Expenses:
The revenue challenged the allowance of the claim for payment of these expenses. The CIT(A) held that these payments did not constitute FTS under section 9(1)(vii) as they did not involve the rendering of technical or consultancy services. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), referencing decisions in CIT Vs. De Beers India Mineral P. Ltd. and Raymond Limited Vs. DCIT. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision.

Conclusion:
The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed, and the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions on all issues, allowing the assessee's claims and confirming that the reimbursements and payments in question did not constitute FTS and were not subject to disallowance under the relevant sections of the Income Tax Act.

---