TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether payments routed through the US branch were chargeable to tax in India as fees for technical services and whether tax was deductible under section 195 so as to attract disallowance under section 40(a)(i); whether payment to Forrester Research Ltd. was royalty and liable to disallowance under section 40(a)(i); whether disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D was sustainable without proper recording of dissatisfaction; whether deduction under section 80G could be allowed in respect of CSR donations; and whether the disallowance relating to Tangent International, UK, was to be deleted or restored for fresh verification.
Issue (i): Whether payments routed through the US branch were chargeable to tax in India as fees for technical services and whether tax was deductible under section 195 so as to attract disallowance under section 40(a)(i).
Analysis: The services were rendered through subcontractors engaged for onsite software development in connection with the assessee's Indian business. The routing of payments through the US branch did not, by itself, bring the case within the exclusion under section 9(1)(vii)(b). The services were technical in nature, but for treaty purposes the decisive question was whether they made available technical knowledge, skill, experience, know-how or processes to the assessee. Mere rendering of services or sharing of work product was insufficient unless the recipient was enabled to perform the function independently in future without the service provider's assistance. The record did not show such transfer of capability.
Conclusion: The payments were not taxable in India on the make available test, no tax was deductible under section 195, and the disallowance under section 40(a)(i) was deleted.
Issue (ii): Whether payment to Forrester Research Ltd. was royalty and liable to disallowance under section 40(a)(i).
Analysis: The payment was made for website access and licence to use content, branding and logo. The assessee's reliance on authorities dealing with fees for technical services and the make available condition was misplaced because the Assessing Officer had treated the payment as royalty. The nature of the licence and use of intellectual property brought the payment within royalty treatment under the domestic law and the treaty analysis accepted by the lower authorities.
Conclusion: The payment was held to be royalty and the disallowance under section 40(a)(i) was sustained.
Issue (iii): Whether disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D was sustainable without proper recording of dissatisfaction.
Analysis: The assessee had made a suo motu disallowance, but the assessment order did not identify the accounts examined or explain why the assessee's computation was incorrect. A mere reference to the quantum of investments and a general statement of dissatisfaction did not satisfy the statutory requirement of objective satisfaction under section 14A(2).
Conclusion: The disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D was deleted.
Issue (iv): Whether deduction under section 80G could be allowed in respect of CSR donations.
Analysis: The statutory bar against claiming CSR expenditure as business expenditure under section 37(1) did not create a separate prohibition against deduction under section 80G where the donation otherwise satisfied the conditions of that provision. The claim was supported by coordinate bench decisions and there was no express disallowance under section 80G merely because the donation formed part of CSR expenditure.
Conclusion: Deduction under section 80G was allowed subject to verification of the statutory conditions.
Issue (v): Whether the disallowance relating to Tangent International, UK, should be deleted or restored for fresh verification.
Analysis: The scope of work for Tangent International had not been furnished, and it was therefore not possible to determine whether the payment was only for manpower supply or involved technical services. Further factual verification was necessary before the taxability of the payment could be decided.
Conclusion: The issue was allowed for statistical purposes and restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination on production of the relevant details.
Final Conclusion: The assessee obtained relief on the major disallowances concerning US branch payments, section 14A, and CSR-related deduction, while the royalty disallowance was sustained and one issue was sent back for verification.
Ratio Decidendi: For treaty purposes, technical services are taxable only when they actually transmit technical knowledge, skill, experience, know-how or processes so that the recipient can apply them independently in future; mere rendering of services or furnishing of work product does not satisfy the make available test.
TaxTMI 
