2024 (11) TMI 1292 - AT - Income Tax

Foreign entity's management service fees to Indian subsidiary without mark-up are cost reimbursements, not royalty under India-Netherlands DTAA Article 12(4)

M/s. Van Oord Dredging And Marine Contractors BV Versus ACIT Circle 4 (3) (2), Mumbai

M/s. Van Oord Dredging And Marine Contractors BV Versus ACIT Circle 4 (3) (2), Mumbai - [2024] 120 ITR (Trib) 254 (ITAT [Mum]) Issues Involved:1. Taxability of Management Service Fees as Royalty.2. Set-off of Management Service Fees treated as Royalty with current year and brought forward business losses.3. Non-grant of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) credit.4. Erroneous levy of interest under sections 234A and 234B, surcharge, and education cess.5. Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 270A.Detailed Analysis:1. Taxability of Management Service Fees as Royalty:The primary issue was whether the Management Service Fees received by the appellant constituted 'Royalty' under Article 12(4) of the India-Netherlands DTAA. The appellant argued that these fees were a pure allocation of cost without any markup and thus should not be considered taxable as royalty. The appellant contended that the services provided did not involve the transfer of any know-how or technical knowledge, which is a prerequisite for classification as royalty. The Tribunal noted that in previous years, similar fees were not treated as royalty, as decided in the appellant's own case for various assessment years. The Tribunal held that the services did not impart any knowledge or experience and were purely advisory, thus not falling under the definition of royalty. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal on this ground.2. Set-off of Management Service Fees treated as Royalty with Current Year and Brought Forward Business Losses:The appellant also challenged the denial of set-off of the management service fees against current year business losses and brought forward business losses. Since the Tribunal ruled that the fees did not constitute royalty, this issue became academic. The Tribunal dismissed this ground as it was no longer relevant.3. Non-grant of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) Credit:The appellant claimed that the full credit of TDS amounting to INR 3,89,05,708 was not granted, despite the amount being reflected in the Form 26AS. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the claim and grant appropriate credit for the TDS after due examination.4. Erroneous Levy of Interest under Sections 234A and 234B, Surcharge, and Education Cess:The appellant contested the levy of interest under sections 234A and 234B, as well as the surcharge and education cess calculated based on the tax computed under the DTAA rates. The Tribunal noted that with the primary issues resolved in favor of the appellant, these computations became consequential. Therefore, the Tribunal deemed these grounds as consequential and did not require separate adjudication.5. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings under Section 270A:The appellant argued against the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 270A, which pertains to underreporting or misreporting of income. The Tribunal found these grounds premature and directed that they be adjudicated by the Assessing Officer in light of the Tribunal's findings. Hence, no separate adjudication was conducted by the Tribunal on this issue.Conclusion:The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant, with the Tribunal ruling that the management service fees did not constitute royalty and directing the Assessing Officer to grant TDS credit after verification. Other issues were deemed either academic or consequential based on the primary rulings.