DTAA withholding and business-expansion deductions allowed, while cess write-off failed for lack of proof of payment.

Payments to Malaysian and Bangladeshi entities for incorporation-related and similar services were held not chargeable to tax in India under the applicable DTAAs, as no permanent establishment or taxable royalty/fees for technical services was shown; accordingly, no tax was deductible under section 195 and the section 40(a)(i) disallowances were deleted. Expenditure connected with the proposed IPO was treated as preliminary business-expansion expenditure allowable under section 35D, so the disallowance was removed. ESOP-related expense was also held deductible because the debit reflected a real employee-cost claim supported by accounting treatment, and the disallowance was deleted. The write-off of Swachh Bharat Cess receivable was disallowed because actual payment during the year was not proved under section 43B(a).

---

---

Issues: (i) whether payments made to a Malaysian entity and a Bangladesh entity were chargeable to tax in India so as to attract disallowance under section 40(a)(i) for failure to deduct tax at source under section 195; (ii) whether expenditure incurred in connection with the proposed IPO was allowable as deduction under section 35D; (iii) whether ESOP-related expenditure was deductible; and (iv) whether the write-off of sundry balances representing Swachh Bharat Cess receivable was allowable.

Issue (i): whether payments made to a Malaysian entity and a Bangladesh entity were chargeable to tax in India so as to attract disallowance under section 40(a)(i) for failure to deduct tax at source under section 195

Analysis: The payment to the Malaysian entity was made for incorporation-related facilitation. The recipient had no Permanent Establishment in India, and the amount was held to be business profit not taxable in India under Article 7 of the India-Malaysia DTAA. It was also held not to be royalty under Article 12, nor fees for technical services under Article 13, as the Department failed to establish managerial, technical, or consultancy services. The payment to the Bangladesh entity was similarly held not taxable in India: it was not shown to be royalty, the entity had no Permanent Establishment in India, and even if regarded as independent professional services under Article 15 of the India-Bangladesh DTAA, no fixed base in India was shown.

Conclusion: The payments were not chargeable to tax in India, there was no obligation to deduct tax at source under section 195, and the disallowances under section 40(a)(i) were deleted.

Issue (ii): whether expenditure incurred in connection with the proposed IPO was allowable as deduction under section 35D

Analysis: The expenditure was incurred towards issue of IPO and was connected with business expansion. The rejection by the lower authorities was based only on the view that the amount did not fall within section 35D. The expense was treated as preliminary expenditure for expansion of business, and the reasoning supported allowance of the claim.

Conclusion: The deduction was allowable under section 35D and the disallowance was deleted.

Issue (iii): whether ESOP-related expenditure was deductible

Analysis: The assessee had granted ESOPs to employees and debited the difference between the actual value and discounted value to the profit and loss account. Part of the expense had also been reversed and offered to tax in later years, showing the expenditure to be real and not merely an unascertained liability.

Conclusion: The ESOP expenditure was allowable and the disallowance was deleted.

Issue (iv): whether the write-off of sundry balances representing Swachh Bharat Cess receivable was allowable

Analysis: The amount written off represented Swachh Bharat Cess receivable, but the assessee failed to establish actual payment during the year as required for deduction under section 43B(a).

Conclusion: The disallowance was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on the substantive issues relating to tax withholding, IPO-related expenditure, and ESOP expense, but failed on the write-off of sundry balances, resulting in a partial relief to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A payment is not subject to withholding tax and consequent disallowance under section 40(a)(i) where the recipient's income is not taxable in India under the applicable DTAA, and expenditure incurred for business expansion or on account of genuine ESOP cost is deductible when supported by the facts and accounting treatment, whereas a claimed deduction linked to cess liability fails without proof of actual payment where such payment is a statutory condition.

---