Case Law Details
1. The brief background of the issue is that during the F.Y. 2004-05, the assessee paid a sum of Rs.8,46,838/- to M/s VHQ Singapore without deducting tax on the same. The AO was of the opinion that this amount was in the nature of professional fee and, therefore, assessee was required to deduct tax at source on the applicable rates. The assessee submitted before the AO that the recipient company was located in Singapore and it did not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. The said company had rendered post production services in Singapore for the purpose of an advertisement film and the work was executed wholly outside India and, therefore, the assessee company was not liable to deduct TDS on the same. However, AO was not satisfied with the reply of the assessee and was of the opinion that since payment was made for processing of a film, assessee was liable to deduct tax u/s 194J and accordingly, he held the assessee in default u/s 201 / 201(1A) of the Act. During the course of appeal before CIT(A), the assessee submitted as under:-
“ A payment of Rs.8,45,838/- was made to VHQ SPTE Ltd., which was a company located in Singapore. The said company had no permanent establishment in India. The amount was paid towards studio hire charges in Singapore for post product/on work for an advertisement film produced by the appellant company. As per the provisions of DTAA between India and Singapore,, the appellant company did not deduct any tax on the payments made to the VHQ SPTE Ltd. as it had no permanent establishment in India. In the original assessment, the assessing officer did not raise any demand on account of TDS for this payment as he was convinced from the verification of bills/ vouchers, that no tax was deductible on account of these payments. However, while completing the assessment u/s 201 (1)1 201(1 A) r.w.s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the then assessing officer considered the payment to the party liable for deduction of tax u/s 194I. He mentioned that as the payment is made for processing of the film, it was liable for deduction u/s 194J attracted for such payments. Further, as per the DTAA between India and UK, as the party did not have any permanent establishment in India, it was not liable to deduction of tax for this payment. It may be appreciated from the bills that the services were rendered by a non-resident company to which the DTAA between the two countries applies. Further, even as per the certificate issued in annexure B by a Chartered Accountant, no tax was liable to be deducted on this payment. In light of the above submissions and the bills/ vouchers submitted, we request Your Honour to delete the demand of Rs.81,878/- made on ac of the payment to KBW Ltd. by the assessing officer and oblige.”
2. However, Ld. CIT(A) did not accept the submissions of the assessee. It was held by him that amendment was brought in section 9(1) wherein it was provided that situs of rendering services was not relevant in determining the taxability of the income of the payee u/s 9 of the Act as far as payment on account of FTS was concerned. It was held that services rendered in Singapore for production of advertisement film was used in India, therefore, the same was taxable in India and accordingly the order of the AO was upheld.
3. During the course of hearing before us, Ld. Counsel of the assessee vehemently contested this issue. The arguments made by him are summarized as under:-
1. “’VHQ.’ merely carried out post production activity. In the process no technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or process as envisaged by Article 12 of the India Singapore DTAA was made available to the Appellant. Hence, the transaction cannot be held to be a fee for technical services as envisaged by Article 12 (4)(a) of the said DTAA. (Pg. 60 – 61 – Case Law PB 3)
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
