Foreign company receipts from Indian affiliate under Master Service Agreement not taxable as revenue sharing arrangement

ITAT Delhi held that receipts by foreign associated enterprises (AEs) from an Indian company under a Master Service Agreement were not taxable in India. The Tribunal found that the arrangement constituted revenue sharing rather than fee for technical services, as both Indian and foreign entities jointly served overseas customers with consolidated billing. The foreign AEs and Indian company worked together on client servers to develop final products, with the Indian company merely distributing customer payments proportionately. The Tribunal rejected the Assessing Officer's view that foreign AEs provided services to the Indian company, ruling the payments were not fee for technical services and decided in favor of the assessee.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Taxability of payments received by foreign associated enterprises (AEs) from HCL Technologies Ltd. (HCLT) as 'Fee for Technical Services' (FTS) under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).
2. Validity of assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
3. Tax computed on assessed income at higher rates than prescribed in the Act or DTAA.
4. Set-off of amount of reversal of receipts for infrastructure services not given in the draft assessment order.
5. Final assessment order passed in the name of a non-existing entity.
6. Levy of education cess and surcharge on income-tax determined under the provisions of the DTAA.
7. Taxability of amounts received for rendering BPO services included in assessed income.

Summary:

1. Taxability of Payments as FTS:
The Tribunal addressed the issue of whether payments received by foreign AEs from HCLT were taxable as 'Fee for Technical Services' under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act and DTAA. It was concluded that the Master Service Agreement between HCLT and the foreign AEs was a business arrangement to serve overseas customers. The payments received by the foreign AEs were in the nature of revenue sharing and not for services provided to HCLT. Thus, these payments were not taxable in India. The Tribunal emphasized that HCLT acted as a facilitator for the end customer, and the services were rendered directly to the customers outside India.

2. Validity of Assumption of Jurisdiction under Section 147:
The Tribunal did not return findings on the validity of the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 as the case was dealt with on merits, rendering these grounds academic and left open for determination.

3. Tax Computed on Assessed Income at Higher Rates:
The issue of tax computed on assessed income at higher rates than prescribed in the Act or DTAA was left open as the applicability of the Treaty was not adjudicated.

4. Set-off of Amount of Reversal of Receipts for Infrastructure Services:
The Tribunal noted that the receipts towards infrastructure services were not chargeable to tax in India since no technical knowledge, experience, skill, knowhow, or process was made available by the foreign AEs to HCLT. This issue was also left open.

5. Final Assessment Order Passed in the Name of a Non-Existing Entity:
The Tribunal left open the issue of final assessment orders being passed in the name of non-existing entities.

6. Levy of Education Cess and Surcharge:
The issue of education cess and surcharge levied on income-tax determined under the provisions of the DTAA was left open.

7. Taxability of Amounts Received for Rendering BPO Services:
The Tribunal concluded that the amounts received by the foreign AEs for rendering BPO services included in the assessed income were not taxable in India, aligning with the reasons recorded in prior decisions.

Conclusion:
All appeals were allowed with consequences to follow as per the determination of issues in favor of the appellants or as left open. The Tribunal pronounced the order in the open court on 29.02.2024.

---