Software maintenance and leased line charges to foreign entities don't require TDS deduction under sections 40(a)(i) and 9(1)(vii)

ITAT PUNE ruled in favor of the assessee on two key issues. Regarding software maintenance charges, the Tribunal held that payments to foreign entity for software use did not constitute royalty under DTAA provisions, making TDS deduction unnecessary and disallowance under section 40(a)(i) invalid. For leased line/data link charges, following SC precedent in Kotak Securities case, the Tribunal determined these charges were not technical services under section 9(1)(vii), thus not requiring TDS deduction. Both disallowances were deleted, with the revenue's appeal dismissed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) regarding software maintenance charges as royalty or fees for technical services.
2. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) concerning leased line charges under Section 194J.
3. Initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) - Software Maintenance Charges:

The primary issue was whether the payment of Rs. 4,86,77,518/- for software maintenance charges should be classified as royalty or fees for technical services under Section 9(1)(vi) or 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, thereby necessitating tax deduction at source (TDS). The appellant argued that the payment did not fall under the definition of fees for technical services (FTS) as per the Act or the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) with Portugal. The Tribunal referred to its earlier decision in the appellant's case for the assessment year 2012-13, where it was held that such payments did not constitute FTS or royalty. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had admitted that no technical knowledge or skill was made available to the assessee, which is a requirement under clause (b) of Article 12(4) of the DTAA. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that there was no requirement for TDS, and thus, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was deleted.

2. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) - Leased Line Charges:

The second issue involved the disallowance of Rs. 41,34,292/- related to leased line charges, which the Assessing Officer categorized under Section 194J, asserting that TDS was necessary. The appellant contended that these charges did not qualify as fees for technical services. The Tribunal referenced its decisions for the assessment years 2015-16 and 2017-18, where it was determined that leased line charges did not constitute technical services as defined under Section 9(1)(vii). The Tribunal further cited the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT Vs. Kotak Securities Ltd., which clarified that such charges are not technical services. Hence, the Tribunal ruled that no TDS was required, and the disallowance was reversed.

3. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings under Section 271(1)(c):

The Tribunal addressed the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c), which was based on the disallowances discussed above. Since the Tribunal had already deleted these disallowances, the basis for the penalty proceedings was nullified. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the ground related to the penalty proceedings as infructuous.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal allowed the appeal partly, favoring the appellant by deleting the disallowances under Sections 40(a)(ia) and 40(a)(i) and dismissing the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c). The decision was pronounced on August 22, 2024.

---