2015 (3) TMI 1052

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ow Measurement Equipment. It was noted by A.O that Assessee had made payment to Colorado Engineering Experiment Station Inc., U.S.A towards calibration and testing of equipment but Assessee had not deducted TDS from the remittance made. A.O was of the view that the payment made by the Assessee were in the nature of technical work and related to engineering and same were utilized by the Assessee and were in the nature of technical services as defined in Explanation 2 of Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act and therefore provisions of Section 195 of the Act were applicable and the Assessee should have deducted the tax before making the payment. The submission of the Assessee that the Services provided by the non- resident were not in the n....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g, if some technological activity is done for an entity earning income in India, without disclosing or associating it as to how it is done or how it Can be replicated in future, it can be stated that the technology has not been made available to that entity. In the instant case also, the appellant has not been told how to test calibration. It needs to be emphasized that M/s Colorado Engineering Experiments Station Inc. only tested the calibration and thereafter provided a test report. Hence, it appears to be a case of process of standardization for which the expertise exists with M/s Colorado Engineering Experiments Station Inc. and which has not been passed on to the assessee. The various case laws cited in the context by the appellant app....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....come tax vide order no. 2009-TIOL-629-HC-KAR- IT dated 24.09.2009. 5. Before us, ld. D.R. submitted that though various grounds are raised but the only issue is with respect to deduction of TDS on payment made to foreign parties. 6. Before us ld. D.R. took us through the order of A.O and pointed to the findings of A.O and supported his order. She also relied on the decisions in the case of Ashok Leyland vs. DCIT (2008)119 TTJ 716, in the case of Dy. DIT vs. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. (2010)132 TTJ 566, in the case of XYZ Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 20 (AAR), & in the case of Centrica India Offshore Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 45 (AAR). 7. The ld. A.R. on the other hand reiterated the submissions made before A.O and CIT(A) and submitte....