TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 1572
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... At the very outset the Counsel for the assessee stated that identical grievance have been considered by this Tribunal in a bunch of appeals bearing ITA No.2011,2012,2013,2015, 9265, 9689/Del/2019 in order dated 29.04.2022 and has decided the quarrel in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 5. The DR could not bring any distinguishing decision in favour of the revenue. 6. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below. We find force in the contention of the Counsel because identical grievance have been heard and decided by this Tribunal (supra) in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The relevant findings read as under :- 7. Respectfully following the decision of the coordinate Bench (supra) we direct the AO to delete the addition. 8. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed. 9. Decision announced in the open court on 15.09.2022. ============= Document 1 1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the facts, law and principle of Stare decisis and is, therefore, bad in law. 2. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ailed to consider the fact that taxability under the aforementioned clause has specifically been rejected by the Hon'ble High Court at Para 12 and 13 of the judgement. 6. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in not deleting interest levied by Ld. AO under Sections 234A & 234B of the Act and has not considered the pronouncement laid in the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court DIT vs. GE Packaged Power Inc 373 ITR 65 wherein it was held that that interest u/s 234B was not chargeable in a case of a non-resident whose entire income was subject to tax deduction at source under section 195 of the Act. All of the above Grounds of Appeal are independent of and without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to add to or alter, by deletion, substitution or otherwise, any or all of the foregoing grounds of appeal at or before the hearing, and to submit such statements, documents and papers as may be considered necessary either at or before the appeal hearing. Document 2 21. If one critically examines the determinative factors/parameters to qualify as FIS under Article 12(4)(a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ices, they are not "ancillary and subsidiary" to the rental of the monitoring equipment. Accordingly, the cleaning services are not "included services" within the meaning of paragraph 4(a). 22. As could be seen from the aforesaid illustration, though, both the services are interlinked, however, the predominant purpose of the arrangement is provision of cleaning services, hence, will not be ancillary or subsidiary to the rental of monitoring machine. Hence, the cleaning services are not to be regarded as FIS under Article 12(4)(a) of the Tax Treaty. 23. The factual position, in a way, is quite similar in the present case. The aforesaid illustration to some extent can be made applicable to the facts of the present appeal. Even if one agrees with learned Commissioner (Appeals) that the License Agreement and Centralized Services Agreement are related to each other and the Centralized Services Agreement actually flows out of the License Agreement but still the issue which requires examination is, whether the Centralized Services Agreement is ancillary or subsidiary to the License Agreement. In our view, the answer to the aforesaid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tating that neither the Assessing Officer nor the learned CIT(A) having applied Article 12(4)(a) of the DTAA in their orders passed in the assessee's case, the Revenue cannot rely on the said Articles to support its case at this stage during the course of appellate proceedings before the Tribunal. Keeping in view that the issues sought to be raised by the Revenue in these additional grounds are purely legal and all the facts relevant to consider and adjudicate the same are on record, we. however, find no merits in the objection raised by the learned, counsel for the assessee and admitting the additional grounds raised by the Revenue, we now proceed to consider and decide the issues raised in these additional grounds also on merits. In support of the Revenue's case that the impugned amount received by the assessee from the Indian hotels/clients was in the nature of 'royalty' or 'fees for included services' as per the DTAA between India and America, reliance thus has been placed by it mainly on the provisions of Articles 12(3)(a) as well as 12(4)(r/) and 12(4)( b). Article 12(3)(b) being specifically applicable only to payments recei....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h advertising, publicity and sales promotion including reservations for the Indian hotels/clients. Even the payment was entirely made as expressly stipulated in the agreement for these services and this is the way in which the entire arrangement was not only made but was also understood by both the sides. Even the use of trademark, trade names etc. of the assessee-company by the Indian hotel /clients was an integral part of this arrangement and such use was allowed at no cost as expressly provided in the relevant agreements. Moreover the rationale behind providing such use at no cost has been explained on behalf of the assessee which is found to be satisfactory by us for the detailed reasons given in the foregoing portion of this order. Having regard to all these aspects, we have come to a conclusion that the various services rendered by the assessee to enable it to complete efficiently and effectively the job undertaken by it as an integrated business arrangement to provide the services relating to advertising, publicity and sales promotion including reservations of the Indian hotels worldwide in mutual interest cannot be relie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rategy etc. were materially different and they were not of technical in nature which would enable the person acquiring the services to apply the technology contained therein. Explaining further, it was also observed by the Tribunal that so far as the provisions of India-Singapore DTAA as well as the provisions of Indo-American DTAA are concerned, payments for services which are non-technical in nature or, in other words, payment for services not containing any technology, are required to be treated as outside the scope of 'fees for technical services'. It was further held by the Tribunal that the scope of 'fees for technical services' under Article 12(4)(b) does not cover consultancy services unless these services are technical in nature. 76. In the case of Raymond Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2003] 86 ITD 791. Mumbai Bench of ITAT held that the normal, plain and grammatical meaning of the language employed using the expressions 'making available' and 'making use of is that the mere rendering of services is not roped in unless the person utilizing the services is able to make use of the technical knowledge etc. by himself in his business or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by it to render services in relation to advertisement, marketing and sales promotion of hotel business worldwide and such supply was merely incidental to the performance of integrated business arrangement which included mainly rendering services in relation to advertisement, publicity and sales promotion of hotel business. The payment made by the Indian hotels/clients to the assessee-company on account of such job or any part thereof, therefore, cannot be attributed to the use of a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trademark or similar property or for imparting of any information concerning technical, industrial, commercial or scientific knowledge, experience or skill. The decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Nayveli Lignite Corpn. Ltd. (supra) and that of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Court in the case of Klayman Porcelains Ltd. (supra) fully support this view. Even the decision of Authority for Advance Ruling in the case of Rotem Co. In re |2005| 279 1TR 165 (AAR - New Delhi) is to the similar effect wherein after discussing the various judicial pronouncements, it was held that the principle ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case also, the entire price was paid by the Indian hotels/clients to the assessee-company in pursuance of the relevant agreements expressly for rendering the services in relation to advertisement, publicity and sales promotion and it was neither possible nor practicable nor permissible to apportion the said consideration as sought to be done by the Revenue authorities. 80. As regards the applicability of Article 12(3)(a) of the DTAA, we have already held that its trademark, trade name etc. were made available by the assessee-company to the Indian hotels/clients as an integral part of the business arrangement between them and the same, therefore, was merely incidental to carry out the job of advertisement, publicity and sales promotion undertaken by the assessee-company. Moreover, the said use was allowed for mutual benefit and the exact benefits derived by the assessee- company from such use have already been discussed by us. As expressly provided in the relevant agreements, it was agreed that no cost is to be paid by the Indian hotels/clients to the assessee-company for such use and the entire payment/consideration was on account ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee in the present case from the Indian hotels/clients were not in the nature of royalties within the meaning given In paragraph 3(a) or 3(b) of Article 12. It, therefore, follows that paragraph 4(a) of Article 12 also cannot be applied to cover any of the services rendered by the assessee- company to the Indian hotels/clients in the present case." Document 3 24. Thus, on a reading of the aforesaid observations of the Coordinate Bench, it becomes very much clear that not only the Tribunal has examined the applicability of Article 12(4)(a) of the Treaty qua the payment received but has categorically held that it cannot be treated as FIS under Article 12(4)(a) of the Treaty. Undisputedly, the aforesaid observations of the Coordinate Bench have been upheld by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of DIT Vs. Sheraton International Inc (supra). In view of the aforesaid, the observations of learned Commissioner (Appeals) that the applicability of Article 12(4)(a) was never examined has to be rejected at the threshold. In fact, we are constrained to observe, learned Commissioner (Appeals), being conscious of the fact that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....question of taw had arisen for their consideration, as these are findings of fact by the Tribunal. Therefore, respectfully following the orders of the higher judicial authorities, the bringing to tax of the business receipts of the appellant in India, is deleted. Thus, the appellant succeeds in grounds 1 to 4. 8. The issue in controversy has also been set at rest by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case cited as Director of Income-tax us. Sheraton. International Inc. (2009) 313 ITR 267 (Del.) as under: 9. "Double taxation relief-Agreement between India and USA- Payment for advertising, publicity and sales promotion services-Tribunal found as a final fact finding authority that main services rendered by assessee, a company incorporated and tax resident in USA, to Indian company, was advertisement, publicity and sales promotion keeping in mind their mutual interests and in that context, the use of trademark, trade name etc, and other enumerated services referred to in the agreement with the assessee were incidental to main service- Tribunal thus rightly concluded that the payments received were neither in the nature of royalt....