Reimbursement of connectivity charges from Huawei India not fee for technical services under section 9(i)(vii)

ITAT Delhi held that reimbursement of connectivity charges received by assessee from Huawei India for international communication services does not constitute fee for technical services under section 9(i)(vii). The tribunal found that connectivity services were merely ancillary to inter-connect services and part of product processing, rejecting revenue's contention that these constituted technical, managerial, or consultancy services. Following Bharti Airtel Ltd. SC precedent, only the 1% markup earned by assessee on reimbursement was held taxable under appropriate provisions.

---

---

Issues:
Assessment of income as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, incorrect application of tax rates, interest levied under section 234A, 234B, and 234C, initiation of penalty proceedings under section 270A.

Analysis:
1. Assessment of Income as FTS: The appeals were filed against the assessment orders for the Assessment Years 2018-19 and 2019-20, challenging the characterization of charges received as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. The assessee contended that the services provided were only connectivity charges and not FTS. The Department argued that the services rendered by the assessee included managerial and consultancy services, falling within the ambit of FTS. However, the tribunal found that the services provided were ancillary to enabling the provision of inter-connect services and part of the processing of the product, not qualifying as technical or managerial services under the Act.

2. Tax Rate Application: The appellant raised concerns about the tax rate applied, stating that the AO computed tax at 40% instead of the applicable 10% under section 115A of the Act. The tribunal did not provide detailed reasoning on this specific issue in the summary provided.

3. Interest and Penalty Proceedings: The AO levied interest under section 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Act, and also initiated penalty proceedings under section 270A. The tribunal did not delve into the specifics of these issues in the summary provided, but it is noted that the grounds of appeal mentioned interest and penalty proceedings as independent issues.

4. Judicial Precedents and Legal Principles: The appellant relied on judicial precedents to support their argument that connectivity charges payments are not taxable as FTS. The tribunal considered the clauses in the purchasing service agreement between the assessee and Huawei India, concluding that the services provided did not constitute technical or managerial services as contended by the Department. The tribunal referenced the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT Vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd. to support its decision.

5. Decision: The tribunal partly allowed the appeals for statistical purposes, indicating that the characterization of the charges as FTS was incorrect, and the amounts could not be treated as technical or managerial services. The tribunal emphasized that the assessee earned a 1% markup on the reimbursement of connectivity charges, and the AO could invoke relevant provisions for taxing the income earned.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues raised, arguments presented by both parties, relevant legal principles applied, and the ultimate decision rendered by the tribunal.

---