TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>HC upholds AO's treatment of free assets under section 28(iv) and rules workshop payments aren't technical service fees</h1> <h3>The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6 (1) (1) Bengaluru Versus M/s. Sony India Software Centre Pvt. Ltd.</h3> The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6 (1) (1) Bengaluru Versus M/s. Sony India Software Centre Pvt. Ltd. - ... ISSUES: Whether the addition of the value of assets received free of cost from an Associated Enterprise (AE) overseas under Section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 constitutes double taxation when depreciation on such assets is also considered as operating expenses under Transfer Pricing (TP) computations.Whether professional consultation charges paid to a foreign entity for conducting workshops are liable for deduction of tax at source (TDS) under Section 40(a)(i) and Section 195 of the Act, considering the nature of the services and provisions of the India-Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).Whether the assessee is liable to deduct TDS on payment of professional consultancy charges without examining the nature of the transaction. RULINGS / HOLDINGS: The Tribunal correctly held that treating the free-of-cost assets as benefits derived from business under Section 28(iv) and simultaneously considering depreciation on these assets as operating expenses for computing operating profit margin under TP results in double taxation; hence, no addition is warranted.The Tribunal rightly held that professional consultation charges paid to a foreign entity for conducting employee workshops do not constitute 'fees for technical services' under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act or Article 12 of the India-Singapore DTAA, and therefore, no TDS deduction under Section 40(a)(i) or Section 195 is required.The Tribunal correctly found that the assessee is not liable to deduct TDS on such payments without a proper examination of the nature of the transaction, which in this case, did not amount to fees for technical services. RATIONALE: The legal framework applied includes Section 28(iv), Section 40(a)(i), and Section 195 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with the India-Singapore DTAA, particularly Articles 12 (Fees for Technical Services) and 14 (Independent Personal Services).The Court relied on the Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) which factored in the Arms Length Price (ALP) including depreciation on assets used, thus negating the need for additional income inclusion under Section 28(iv).The Court interpreted the term 'fees for technical services' strictly as defined in Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the India-Singapore DTAA, emphasizing that training workshops on performance and career management do not transfer technical knowledge, experience, skill, or know-how, and therefore, do not qualify as fees for technical services.The Supreme Court precedent was cited to affirm that definitions under DTAA prevail over domestic Act definitions for treaty interpretation.The Court noted that the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue concerning seconded employees and reimbursement payments were not part of the assessment order and, thus, did not arise for consideration.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
