2016 (1) TMI 73

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rises for consideration in all the appeals, we heard them together and disposing of the same by this common order. 2. Shri T.G. Suresh, ld. Representative for the assessee submitted that during the assessment years under consideration the assessee made remittances to non-resident companies for availing the services of embryologists which are required for IVF procedure carried out by the assessee-hospital. According to the ld. Representative, as per the agreement, M/s Sapient In-Vitro Ltd., Australia and M/s Down Under Fertility Services Pty. Ltd., Australia, deputed their personnel for providing the services. The assessee has also made payments to M/s Sapient In-Vitro Ltd., Australia and M/s Down Under Fertility Services Pty. Ltd., Austr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s. Wherever the object does not require the assessee to claim refund towards excess tax deducted at source would not serve the purpose of introducing sec. 206AA. Referring to the order of the Assessing Officer, the ld. Representative submitted that general provisions under the Income-tax Act, 1961 must yield way to special provisions. According to the ld. Representative, sec. 139A(8) r.w. rule 114C of Income-tax Rules, is a special provision providing a category of persons exempting from getting Permanent Account Number. Therefore, sec. 139A(8) r.w.rule 114C would prevail over sec. 206AA of the Act. The ld. Representative further submitted that the non-resident recipients, in fact, obtained the Permanent Account Number on 27.2.2013 during t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....non-residents. The dispute is only with regard to the rate of tax to be deducted i.e @ 10% or @ 20%. If the assessee obtains Permanent Account Number then deduction of tax @ 10% would meet the requirements. In the absence of any Permanent Account Number, this section requires the assessee to deduct tax @ 20%. In this case, according to the ld. Representative, there is no obligation on the recipients, namely, non-resident companies, to obtain Permanent Account Number u/s 139A r.w.rule 114C. Therefore, there is no question of deduction of tax @ 20%. Even otherwise, in the very same financial year i.e on 27.2.2013, the non-residents obtained the Permanent Account Number. Therefore, at any stretch of imagination, the assessee cannot be treated ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... DR, the Assessing Officer by placing reliance on the decision of the Bangalore Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Bosch vs CIT, 28 Taxmann.com 228, found that the provisions of sec. 206AA would override the other provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the assessee was rightly treated as an 'assessee in default'. 8. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and also perused the material available on record. The assessee, admittedly, paid fee for technical services to Australian companies for providing technical services in India. It is also an admitted fact that the Australian Companies deputed their employees to India for providing the technical services. It is also not in dispute that the payment made by t....