TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the value of equipment received free of cost from associated enterprises was liable to be brought to tax under section 28(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. (ii) Whether amounts paid for conducting employee workshops were liable to disallowance under section 40(a)(i) on the footing that they constituted fees for technical services under the India-Singapore DTAA.
Issue (i): Whether the value of equipment received free of cost from associated enterprises was liable to be brought to tax under section 28(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis: The equipment was supplied only for use in the assessee's software-development work and was required to be returned. The explanation that the items were prototypes meant for testing compatibility and conformity of the software was accepted and was not controverted. The arm's length price mechanism under the APA had already factored the relevant assets and depreciation, leaving no scope for a further addition on the same account.
Conclusion: The addition under section 28(iv) was rightly deleted and the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether amounts paid for conducting employee workshops were liable to disallowance under section 40(a)(i) on the footing that they constituted fees for technical services under the India-Singapore DTAA.
Analysis: The payment was for general training workshops on performance and career management. Such training did not make available technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how, or processes, and therefore did not satisfy the treaty definition of fees for technical services. The treaty definition controlled the characterisation of the payment, and the amount did not fall within that category. Since the grievance before the Tribunal did not arise from the assessment order, no disallowance could survive on that ground.
Conclusion: The disallowance under section 40(a)(i) was not sustainable and the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The Revenue's appeal failed on both additions, and the assessment was not interfered with to the extent granted relief by the appellate authorities.
Ratio Decidendi: For treaty classification, the definition in the applicable DTAA prevails over the Act, and training services amount to fees for technical services only when they make available technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how, or processes.
TaxTMI 
