AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 1169
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for A.Y. 1996-97):- "(i) On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the demand raised by the Assessing Officer as 201(1) and u/s 201(A) of the IT. Act 1961 amounting to Rs. 2,71,82,318/- (ii) On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has creed in holding that the assessee has not committed any default for non-deduction of tax at source u/s 194J and u/s 195 of the IT. Act with regard to payment by way of reimbursement to member companies, allowances paid to resident and non-resident personnel and payment to foreign agents The learned CIT(A) further erred in holding that the assessee cannot be held to be "deemed to be in default" u/s 201(1) and u/s 201(1A) of the IT. Act, ignoring the following facts (a) That the reimbursement of Indian Salary and benefits to members company is termed as fees for technical services as per explanation 2 to Sec. 9(1)(vii) of the IT. Act. The tax is, thus, deductible at source therefrom u/s 194J of I.T. Act (b) That the payment made to secondees by the assessee, who are resident, the tax is deductible at source as per Sec. 19....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n segment. During the period of his secondment all the statutory obligations for provident fund contribution, gratuity etc. continued to be deducted by the member companies and after such deduction the member companies continue paying salaries to the seconded personnel in discharge of their obligation to its employees during the period of secondment. The foreign allowance and the food and out of pocket expenses to be paid to the employees are also specified in the letter of assignment issued by the member employer company. For the secondment of such employee by the member/employer company PII is to compensate the member employer company for all expenses incurred by it towards the Indian salary and other benefits of such employees during the period of secondment. 4. During his tenure abroad the secondee continues to draw his present salary from member companies where he is employee and the member companies credits secondee's Indian bank account with the amount of salary in Indian Rupees. But over and above this secondee is entitled to foreign allowance and living allowance in foreign exchange which is directly paid to him by the assessee but no TDS is deducted on the plea that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....such payment under section 195 of the Act. Consequently the assessee is deemed to be assessee in default under section 201(1) of the Act to the tune of Rs. 2,54,10,239/-, 2,28,76,323/-, 2,40,00,619/- for A.Y. 1995-96, 1996-97 & 1997-98 respectively 7. The assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing appeal who has deleted the demand by accepting the appeal. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) the Revenue has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing present appeals. 8. We have heard the Ld. Authorised Representatives of the parties to the appeal, perused the orders passed by the Ld. Lower Revenue Authorities and documents available on record in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable thereto. 9. Undisputedly member companies have provided expert personnel to PII/assessee for rendering technical services for which the assessee is also making payment to the member companies. It is also not in dispute that the AO by invoking the provisions contained under section 9(1) of the Act, explanation 2 treated the same as fee for technical services. It is also not in dispute that as per agreement ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... depute an employee who fulfills the job requirements. There is no privity of contract as such between the member employer company and the overseas industrial unit. Considering the arrangement between the member company as a whole, it appears that the member companies have agreed as a part of their obligation under the MOU to place at the disposal of the appellant on a no profit basis employees required by the appellant to fulfil its contractual obligation to the overseas clients. The member company obviously would not like to be out-of-pocket for providing this service and, accordingly, are to get fully reimbursed by the PII. In view of the facts mentioned above, it is not correct to say that member-companies are rendering technical services to PII. This finding is contrary to all the facts on records. 7.3. Now let us discuss the provisions of section 9(1)(vii) which deals with income by way of fees for technical services and section 194J 'fees for technical services'. As per Clause (b) to the Explanation below section 194J, read with Explanation (2) below section 9(1)(vii) of the Act means any consideration for the rendering of any managerial, technical or consul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lary paid by the member-company during the period of secondment, the employer- employee relationship between the member-company and the seconded personnel continues. It has also to be mentioned here that member- company in its books does not consider the reimbursement by PII as an item of income but the same is credited to the salary account. 7.4. Keeping in view all the facts of the case and discussion above, I am of the opinion that Income-tax officer was not correct in law in holding that the reimbursement of Indian salary and other benefits to member- companies by PII concerning all seconded personnel, technical as well as managerial whether posted in India or overseas, is fees for technical services within the meaning of ambit of the definition of the said expression in Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii). The appellant, therefore, cannot be held to be an assesses in default for this purpose. 8. PAYMENT TO RESIDENT SECONDEES:- The I.T.O. in his order under appeal has contended that 'payments made to secondees who are resident, the tax should be deducted at source as per section 194J of the I.T. Act'. 8.2. At the outset, it must be mention....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce to salaries, as the 'employer'. As already discussed, there was no employer- employee relationship between the PII and the secondees and, hence, PII cannot be considered as the person responsible for paying. 9. Before parting with this issue, I would like to mention Gujarat High court decision in CIT vs. Link 244 ITR 93 wherein it has been held that the living allowance paid to employee is not a personal advantage and therefore does not constitute Perquisite which can be subjected to tax. 10. The appellant, therefore, cannot be held to be an assessee in default for its failure to deduct tax from the payment to resident secondees. 11. PAYMENT TO NON-RESIDENT SECONDEES- The I.T.O. in his order under appeal has contended that on payment made to the secondees who are non-resident, tax should be deducted at source as per section 195 since the payment is chargeable to Income-tax under the charging section 5(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. According to the I.T.O., the income has accrued to the secondees as a result of offer made in India by the Indian concern (member company) and accepted by the secondees in India and the payment has also bee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is earned in India and the Explanation thereto, provides, for the removal of doubts, that income of the nature of salaries payable for services rendered in India x shall be regarded as income earned in India. It follows from the Explanation that where the service is rendered outside India, the salary would not be regarded as accruing or deemed to accrue in India. As the amount does not accrue or arise nor is received in India and is also not deemed to accrue or arise or to be received in India, it would not constitute a sum chargeable under the provisions of the Act, and, accordingly, section 195 of the Act will not apply. 11.5. In the submissions made by the appellant and in the affidavit filed by the Executive Chairman of PII, it has been stated that payment towards living allowance/foreign allowance on behalf of the member companies, to the secondee is towards reimbursement of living expenses, while fulfilling the duties of their assignment while on secondment oversees. It has also been submitted that average reimbursement paid to the secondees on a daily basis does not exceed US$ 75, which is well within the guidelines of R.B.I. and Ministry of External Affairs. This ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ff, providing office facilities and secretarial assistance and informing the appellant of relevant local laws, maintaining liaison with clients of the appellant etc. The TDS officer has taken the view that the payment made by the appellant under the agency agreements attracts the provisions of section 195 and the appellant should have deducted x tax at source. The question which is to be decided here is whether the amount receivable by the agent would be chargeable to tax in India. The agents are performing their services wholly outside India and the services which give rise to the earning or remuneration by them are performed in their respective foreign countries. A perusal of all the agreements makes it very clear that foreign agents do not perform any operation within India. No part of the said payment, therefore, can be regarded as chargeable to tax in India. Section 9(1)(i) of the Act deems income accruing or arising through or from any business connection in India to be income accruing or arising in India. Clause (a) of the Explanation clarifies that in the case of a business of which all the operations are not carried out in India, the income of the business deemed to accrue....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r things held that the person responsible for paying the salary of an employee was the employer himself. It Log only means that there is an obligation to deduct tax at source from the allowance given to the secondees but in terms of this decision itself, the person responsible for making payment is the employer. The said decision, in fact, supports the case of the appellant as the appellant is not an employer of a secondee. Here, I would like to mention the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Vs. G. Eroppino Giovanni (196 ITR 618). In this decision it has been held that there was no employer- exployee relationship between the payer and payee and, therefore, the payee being the third party could not enforce his right against the payer. As already diseased, seconded personnel cannot enforce their right regarding the foreign allowance against the appellant since their entitlement to the foreign allowance arises from the secondment letter issued to them by their employer member companies who undertook the obligation to pay the foreign allowance to the seconded personnel. 13.3. Before I part with the care, I would like to make a mention of the affidavit and let....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g technical services TDS was deductable under section 194J of the Act by relying upon the provisions contained in the Explanation 2 of section 9(1) of the Act by treating the same as fee for technical services on the ground that as per agreement on record between PII and overseas clients it is assessee/PII who is responsible for providing the technical services to the overseas clients and there is no privity of contract between member employer company and the overseas industrial units. 16. Moreover under MOU member companies have placed its employee at the disposal of PII on a net profit basis and employee to fulfill its contractual obligation to the overseas clients. Moreover, member companies have not incurred anything out of pocket for providing these services rather they are fully reimbursed by PII. So we are in agreement with the Ld. CIT(A) that member companies are not rendering technical services to the PII. 17. Moreover, member employer company deducts tax at source under section 192 of the Act from the Indian salary of such employee as they continue to get their salary from his employer member companies. Member companies have also continued to deduct statutory deduct....