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>TDS not deducted on license fees to SUPIMA deemed royalty under Income Tax Act. Interest upheld.</h1> <h3>M/s. Ambika Cotton Mills Ltd. Versus The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Coimbatore.</h3> M/s. Ambika Cotton Mills Ltd. Versus The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Coimbatore. - TMI Issues:1. Non-deduction of TDS on license fee paid to SUPIMA, USA by the assessee company for using the mark SUPIMA®.2. Classification of the payment made to SUPIMA, USA as royalty under Explanation 2(1) to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.3. Application of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and USA.4. Confirmation of levy of interest under section 201(1A) of the Act for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2013-14.Issue 1: Non-deduction of TDS on license fee paid to SUPIMA, USA:The assessee, a cotton yarn manufacturing company, imported PIMA cotton from America and paid license fees to SUPIMA, USA without deducting TDS. The Assessing Officer (AO) invoked Section 195 of the Act for non-deduction of TDS. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld this decision, considering the payment as a royalty under Explanation 2(1) to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. The Tribunal found the payment to be for using the SUPIMA® mark, confirming the liability for TDS deduction. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the obligation to deduct TDS on such payments.Issue 2: Classification of payment as royalty:The AO and the Ld. CIT(A) classified the payment made by the assessee to SUPIMA, USA as royalty under Explanation 2(1) to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the agreement clearly indicated the payment was for using the SUPIMA® mark, hence constituting a royalty payment. The Tribunal rejected the argument that yearly payments exempted TDS deduction, emphasizing the obligation to deduct TDS regardless of payment frequency. The Tribunal upheld the decision, concluding that the payment was indeed a royalty, thus confirming the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A).Issue 3: Application of DTAA between India and USA:Although the DTAA between India and USA was considered by the AO and Ld. CIT(A), the assessee's counsel did not provide any submissions on this aspect. Hence, no specific findings were made regarding the DTAA in the judgment. The Tribunal did not delve into this issue further due to the absence of relevant submissions from the assessee's side.Issue 4: Confirmation of levy of interest under section 201(1A) of the Act:The Tribunal confirmed the levy of interest under section 201(1A) of the Act for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2013-14, as the quantum addition was upheld. The interest levy was sustained in line with the decision on the TDS liability. The Tribunal dismissed all three appeals filed by the assessee, upholding the orders passed by the lower authorities regarding the TDS, royalty classification, and interest levy.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decisions of the lower authorities regarding the non-deduction of TDS on license fees paid to SUPIMA, USA, classifying the payments as royalty under the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal also confirmed the levy of interest under section 201(1A) of the Act for the relevant assessment years. The appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed, emphasizing the importance of complying with TDS obligations on payments classified as royalties.
TaxTMI 