S. 195

Cummins Ltd., In re  A.A.R NO. 1152 OF 2011 (dated 12.01.2016) Background: Cummins Limited, UK is a company incorporated in the UK. Cummins Technologies India Limited (CTIL) is a company incorporated in India. CTIL is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of turbochargers. CTIL purchases turbocharger components directly from third party in UK and US and in relation to such purchases, Cummins Limited provides supply management services vide Material Suppliers Management Service Agreement.  As per the agreement CTIL pays supply management service fees calculated at 5% of the base prices from the suppliers As per the agreement, Cummins Ltd, UK is responsible for following activities: – Finalization of supplier prices from UK and US suppliers and ensuring market- competitive pricing from suppliers; – Ensuring that the approved suppliers have the necessary manufacturing capacities and infrastructure to provide for the raw material requirements; – Assisting in ensuring on-time delivery of components by the suppliers to Cummins India as well as resolution of delivery performance issues with suppliers, if any – Ensuring that suppliers maintain strict compliance with the standards, procedures and processes and support in obtaining response from supplier to any quality control violation issue; and – Performance review of the supplier  Cummins Ltd does not have a permanent establishment (PE) in India in respect of the supply management services as per the provisions of the India-UK Treaty.

‘Managerial services’ do not fall within the ambit of ‘fees for technical services’; not taxable ...

DCIT v M/s Carl Zeiss India (P) Ltd (ITA No 1251(B)/2014, 1258(B)/2014 dated 24 July 2015) Mumbai ITAT Background: During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noted that the assessee has claimed Rs.1,12,51,602 under the head cost of senior management pertaining to activities of Carl Zeiss India Branch. On query, by the AO, the assessee submitted that during the financial year amount has been reimbursed to Carl Zeiss, Singapore Pte Ltd. being the cost allocated based on the proportion of work performed. Thus, it was submitted that the cost reimbursed by the assessee is in the nature of reimbursement on actual basis without any mark-up. The assessee has also pointed out that the payment was made and the amount was remitted only after obtaining a certificate from the AO u/s 195(2).  The AO did not accept the contention of the assessee and was of the view that the services provided by the head office through 3 senior managerial personnel fall under the category of fee for technical services (FTS). Thus, the AO held that the remittance in truth and reality is consideration for technical services disguised as reimbursement of expenses. Since the assessee did not deduct tax at source, the said payment of Rs.1,12,51,602 was disallowed and added to the total income. The CIT(A) gave partial relief by accepting contentions of the assessee with respect to 1 managerial personnel and dismissed the ground regarding other 2 personnel and upheld the order of the AO that the services were indeed FTS.

Once certificate u/s 195(2) is obtained for NIL deduction, AO cannot disallow the expense u/s ...

Jeans Knit (P.) Ltd v DCIT [ITA No: 19 & 23 (BANG.) OF 2010] (Bangalore ITAT) Background: The assessee is a 100% export oriented undertaking and is engaged in the business of manufacturing and export of garments. During the relevant financial year, the assessee made remittances to M/s Sharp Eagle International Ltd. (SEL), a non-resident company incorporated in Hongkong. The AO observed that the assessee made these remittances without deduction of tax at source as per provision of sec. 195(1) read with sec. 9(i)(vii) of the Act. The assessee submitted that SEL was acting on directions of the assessee for inspection of fabrics, timely dispatch of material etc. and for these services, the assessee paid 12.5% of imported value as charges to the non- resident company. The AO held that the charges paid to the non-resident company are fees for technical services (FTS) as defined in explanation 2 to sec. 9(1)(vii) and therefore, held the assessee to be defaulter u/s 201(1A) for non deduction of tax.  The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) also upheld the order of the AO.

Payment to overseas agent is not FTS – Bangalore ITAT