TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (8) TMI 295
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iginally, this appeal was disposed of ex parte, though by an elaborate and reasoned order, by the learned Vice President in SMC bench, but, upon the matter having been recalled at the instance of the assessee respondent, the appeal has been transferred to this division bench. That is how we have come to be in seisin of the matter, and that is how the appeal has once again come up for hearing on merits. 3. Let us first take a look at the developments leading to this litigation before us. The assessee before us is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of tooth powder, tooth paste, tooth brush and other health care products. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....could also not be treated as 'royalties' , the payment so made to the BDHF could not indeed be taxed in India. Learned CIT(A) further noted that since the BDHF did not have any tax liability in respect of these payments, and the assessee did not , therefore, have any obligation to deduct tax at source from this payment, disallowance under section 40(a)(i) was not sustainable in law. The impugned disallowance was thus deleted. The Assessing Officer is aggrieved of the relief so granted by the CIT(A) and is in appeal before us. 4. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and duly considered facts of the case in the light of applicable legal position. 5. We find that, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t. That exercise was not carried out by the Assessing Officer on the facts of this case. The Assessing Officer was thus clearly in error in proceeding to invoke disallowance under section 40(a)(i) on the short ground that the assessee did not deduct tax at source from the foreign remittance. To that extent, CIT(A) was justified in deleting the impugned disallowance. 6. However, while on this issue, it is also necessary to consider is whether the assessee indeed had an obligation to deduct tax at source from the remittance of Rs 11,71,826 to British Dental Health Association UK. 7. The assessee had made the payment of Rs 11,71,826 to British Dental Health Association towards accreditation panel fees. BDHF is a UK based re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ght to tax in India as business profits under Article 7. Learned Departmental Representative also does not dispute this. His only defence is that even if it is not taxed as business profits, it is at least taxable as 'royalties', since the assessee derives valuable advantage from the accreditation by BDHF and use the same as a marketing tool. However, we find that the scope of expression 'royalty', for the purposes of India UK tax treaty, is quite restricted as scope as evident from the provisions of Article 13(3) as reproduced below: (3) For the purposes of this Article, the term 'royalties' means: (a) payments of any kind received as a consideration for the use of, or the right to use, any copyright of a literary, arti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the payment made for such an accreditation is not covered the definition of 'royalty' as set out in Article 13(3) of India UK tax treaty. Learned Departmental Representative's argument is that in substance the payment for BDHS accreditation is nothing but a royalty to use their name for marketing, and, therefore, this payment should be treated as a payment of royalty. We see no substance in this simplistic plea. When an expression has been defined in law, and the impugned payment is not covered by such a specific definition, it cannot be open to us to look at normal connotations of this expression in business parlance. Simply because assessee is benefited by this accreditation, and the assessee uses the same for its marketing purposes, the....