TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether disallowance under section 40(a)(i) could be made for IVTC charges and reimbursement of expenses where tax was not deducted at source before the retrospective amendment to the law; (ii) whether training charges paid to non-residents were likewise disallowable under section 40(a)(i); (iii) whether the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) could be restricted to 30% of the amount; and (iv) whether the assessee was entitled to the benefit of Article 10 of the India-Switzerland DTAA for dividend distribution tax, with consequential refund.
Issue (i): whether disallowance under section 40(a)(i) could be made for IVTC charges and reimbursement of expenses where tax was not deducted at source before the retrospective amendment to the law.
Analysis: The payments were made to non-resident service providers at a time when the relevant income was not taxable in the manner later introduced by retrospective amendment. The governing principle applied was that a retrospective amendment cannot create a TDS obligation for a period when the provision was not in force, and a taxpayer cannot be required to perform an impossible act. On that basis, the consequential disallowance under section 40(a)(i) was found unsustainable.
Conclusion: In favour of the assessee. The disallowance of IVTC charges and reimbursement of expenses was deleted.
Issue (ii): whether training charges paid to non-residents were likewise disallowable under section 40(a)(i).
Analysis: The same reasoning was applied to the training payments. Since the obligation to deduct tax at source could not be fastened by a later retrospective amendment for payments already made, the failure to deduct tax did not justify disallowance under section 40(a)(i).
Conclusion: In favour of the assessee. The disallowance of training charges was deleted.
Issue (iii): whether the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) could be restricted to 30% of the amount.
Analysis: The amendment restricting disallowance to 30% was treated as substantive and not retrospective. The earlier view in the assessee's own case was followed, and the benefit of the amended limitation was declined for the relevant years.
Conclusion: Against the assessee. The plea to restrict disallowance to 30% was rejected.
Issue (iv): whether the assessee was entitled to the benefit of Article 10 of the India-Switzerland DTAA for dividend distribution tax, with consequential refund.
Analysis: The issue required fresh examination of the interplay between dividend distribution tax under section 115-O and the treaty provision dealing with dividend taxation. As the first appellate authority had not dealt with all relevant contentions, the matter was restored for reconsideration.
Conclusion: In favour of the assessee to the extent of remand. The issue was sent back for fresh adjudication.
Final Conclusion: The common principle applied was that a retrospective fiscal amendment cannot be used to impose a withholding obligation for payments made before the amendment, while the treaty-based dividend distribution tax question required fresh examination at the appellate stage.
Ratio Decidendi: A retrospective amendment cannot fasten a withholding-tax obligation for a period when the relevant provision was not in force, and consequently no disallowance under section 40(a)(i) can be sustained on that basis.
TaxTMI 
