2024 (7) TMI 715 - AT - Income Tax

Non-resident software training fees exempt from TDS under section 195 as income not taxable in India

QAI India Ltd. Versus DCIT Circle -21 (2) New Delhi

QAI India Ltd. Versus DCIT Circle -21 (2) New Delhi - TMI Issues Involved:1. Validity of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)].2. Disallowance of Rs. 54,65,508/- paid to Everest Global Inc. under Section 40(a)(i) read with Section 195 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.3. Determination of whether the payment for software training services is chargeable to tax in India.4. Applicability of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) on the payment made to Everest Global Inc.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Order Passed by CIT(A):The assessee contended that the order passed by the CIT(A) was erroneous both in law and on facts. The Tribunal examined the arguments and evidence presented by both parties. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had partly allowed the appeal of the assessee but upheld the disallowance of Rs. 54,65,508/- paid to Everest Global Inc. The Tribunal scrutinized the reasoning provided by the CIT(A) and the legal principles involved.2. Disallowance of Rs. 54,65,508/- Paid to Everest Global Inc.:The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer (AO) by invoking the provisions of Section 40(a)(i) read with Section 195 of the Act. The CIT(A) observed that the payment to Everest Global Inc. was considered royalty and was chargeable to tax in India. The Tribunal reviewed the CIT(A)'s findings and the explanation provided by the assessee. The CIT(A) noted that the assessee failed to provide a comprehensive explanation for the total payment of Rs. 54,65,508/-, which was deemed as royalty.3. Determination of Whether the Payment for Software Training Services is Chargeable to Tax in India:The assessee argued that the payment made for software training services was not chargeable to tax in India as the services were rendered and utilized outside India. The Tribunal examined the relevant provisions, including Section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act, which states that fees for technical services payable by a resident are not deemed to accrue or arise in India if the services are utilized in a business carried on outside India or for earning income from a source outside India. The Tribunal referred to various judicial precedents, including the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. Motif India Infotech (P) Ltd, which supported the assessee's contention.4. Applicability of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA):The assessee also contended that the payment was not taxable as per the DTAA. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not explicitly address the applicability of the DTAA in its order. However, the Tribunal took into consideration the arguments and evidence presented by the assessee, including the fact that Everest Global Inc. did not have a permanent establishment in India and that the services were utilized outside India.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the payment made to Everest Global Inc. for software training services was not chargeable to tax in India as per Section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act. The Tribunal held that the services were utilized for earning income from a source outside India, and therefore, the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source under Section 195 of the Act. Consequently, the disallowance of Rs. 54,65,508/- was deleted, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee's payment fell within the exceptions provided under Section 9(1)(vii)(b), and the income earned by the non-resident could not be deemed to accrue or arise in India. The order pronounced in the open court on 10.07.2024, allowed the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes.