Tribunal Grants Stay on Tax Demand for Non-Resident Company

The Tribunal granted a stay on the realization of the outstanding demand under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the non-resident company incorporated in France. The applicant's argument that section 194D does not apply to reinsurance commission, supported by judicial precedents, was considered valid. The Tribunal scheduled an expedited appeal hearing to further examine the issue, directing no coercive action for demand recovery until the appeal hearing on 28.04.2022. The stay application was allowed with specified conditions, pronounced in open court on 1st April 2022.

---

---

Issues:
Stay on realization of outstanding demand under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for alleged failure to deduct tax at source under section 194D.

Analysis:
The applicant, a non-resident company incorporated in France, filed an application seeking stay on the demand of Rs. 6,29,73,067 for the assessment year 2018-19. The demand arose due to disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) for failure to deduct tax at source under section 194D. The applicant, engaged in reinsurance services, argued that section 194D is not applicable to reinsurance commission as they do not solicit or procure insurance business. They explained their activities involve reinsurance ceded from insurance companies, emphasizing they do not have direct contact with policyholders. The applicant received payments from insurance companies net of administrative costs, which they argued were not commission but compensation for procurement costs incurred by the insurance company.

The applicant cited Circular No. 120(a)/2/2010-ST, emphasizing that payments made to reinsurers by insurance companies are shared expenses, not strictly commission. They referred to judicial precedents, including the General Insurance Corporation India case and the PCIT Vs. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. case, to support their argument that the reinsurance commission does not fall under section 194D. They also highlighted a decision by the Madras High Court that reversed a Tribunal decision relied upon by the Departmental Representative. The applicant requested an absolute stay on demand recovery, asserting that the issue was in their favor based on legal precedents.

The Departmental Representative opposed granting an absolute stay and suggested the applicant pay 20% of the outstanding demand. After considering the arguments, the Tribunal noted that the issue of applicability of section 194D to reinsurance commission would be examined during the appeal hearing. The Tribunal acknowledged that the applicant's argument seemed to be supported by various judicial precedents cited. Therefore, the Tribunal granted an expeditious hearing of the appeal, scheduling it for 28.04.2022. The Registry was directed to fix the appeal date, and no coercive action for demand recovery was allowed until the appeal hearing. The Tribunal warned that any unnecessary adjournment sought by the applicant could lead to the vacation of interim protection and loss of the benefit of early appeal hearing.

In conclusion, the stay application was allowed with the specified conditions, and the order was pronounced in the open court on 1st April 2022.

---