Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2022 (9) TMI 824

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Ld CIT(A) has erred in holding that the amount of Rs 5,40,49,783 paid to the Australian Payee do not constitute fees for Technical Services rendered by the Payee to the assessee company? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CIT(A) has erred in holding that the service rendered by the payee has not resulted into making available technology/knowledge/skill/knowhow to the assessee within the meaning of Articles 12(3) of the DTAA between India and Australia? 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CIT(A) has erred in holding that the Assessing Officer was obliged to follow the certificate issued u/s 195(2) of the T Act 1961 by the DCIT(International Taxation), Mumbai without appreciating the facts that the certificate issued by the DCIT(International Taxation), Mumbai was for a different assessment year and in respect of a different party/client of the assessee? 5. The appellant prays that the order of CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of Assessing Officer be restored." 3. The only grievance of the Revenue in the present appeal is against deletion of disallowance of Rs. 5,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....within the provisions of Article 12(3)(g) of India Australia Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA'). Accordingly, the AO came to the conclusion that the assessee should have deducted tax in respect of amounts payable to the overseas entity under the provisions of section 195 on the ground, that, the amount payable to them was chargeable to tax in India under Article 12 of DTAA dealing with 'Royalty' and section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. As a result, the AO disallowed the payment of Rs. 5,40,49,783, under provisions of section 40(a)(i) read with section 195 of the Act. 5. In appeal, learned CIT(A), vide impugned order dated 27/03/2019, after taking note of certificate for non-deduction of TDS issued under section 195(2) by the DCIT (International Taxation), observed as under: "3.7 It is also seen that for FY. 2016-17 the appellant company made application u/s 195(2) of the Act to the Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax (International Taxation), Range-3(1)(2) for Nil deduction of Tax in respect of payments made to CMA towards the same support services. The appellant received order u/s 195(2) dated 02.08.2016, wherein after discussions and referring to the very same agreement....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... proceedings. Again, each assessment year being a unit, what is decided in one year may not apply in the following year but where a fundamental aspect permeating through the different assessment years has been found as a fact one way or the other and parties have allowed that position to be sustained by not challenging the order, it would not be at all appropriate to allow the i position to be changed in a subsequent year." This judgment of the Apex Court has been consistently followed by various judicial and appellate forums and considering the fact that the assessee is making the same payment year after year as per the agreement, the considered stand of the AO having jurisdiction of section 195 taken in latest assessment years cannot be changed to a different stand in an earlier assessment years." 6. Further, the learned CIT(A) after referring to various circulars issued by CBDT held that the AO was under obligation to follow the certificate issued under section 195(2) of the Act, determining the withholding taxes at Nil in the case of aforesaid Australian group entity and the assessee. The learned CIT(A) also noted that such certificate was neither modified nor cance....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n 31/03/2015, assessee entered into an agreement with Cover More Insurance Services Pty Ltd, Australia. From the perusal of the agreement, copy of which forms part of the paper book from page No. 18 - 22, we find that the Australian entity agreed to provide administration/business support services including actuarial, finance support, growth and innovation support, human resource support, infrastructure support, design of marketing and sales brochure and development of group marketing strategy, to the assessee. As per the agreement, the services are merely support services and are neither technical nor managerial nor consulting in nature and are not intended to transfer/make available any knowledge/experience/skill to the assessee. Further, we find that the purpose of activities undertaken under the aforesaid agreement is to give direction to the assessee so that they adopt or follow standard procedure or template in various matters. It is further mentioned that the services are non-technical in nature and are availed by the group companies with the intention of carrying on business in line with the best practices followed by Cover-More group. In consideration of services received ....