Friday, December 20, 2013

Transfer Pricing: High Court Clarifies Important Aspects Of The Law - TNMM


Transfer Pricing: TNMM under Rule 10B(1)(e) contemplates ALP determination with reference to the relevant factors (cost, assets, sales etc.) of the assessee and not those of the AE or third party. Assessee’s study report cannot be discarded without showing how it is wrong. Finding that assessee is a risk bearing entity should be based on tangible material

The assessee, a wholly owned subsidiary in India of Li & Fung (South Asia) Ltd., Mauritius, was set up as a captive offshore sourcing provider. It entered into an agreement with Li & Fung (Trading), Hong Kong, an associated enterprise, for rendering “sourcing support services” for the supply of high volume & time sensitive consumer goods. The assessee was entitled to receive cost plus a mark up of 5% for the services rendered to the AE. The assessee claimed that it was a low risk captive sourcing service provider performing limited functions with minimal risk. It adopted the TNMM and computed the PLI at operating profit margin/total cost. Since the operating profit margin at 5.17% exceeded the weighted average operating margin of 26 other comparable companies, the assessee claimed that its remuneration was at arms’ length. The TPO did not dispute the TNMM or the comparables but held that the assessee ought to have received 5% on the FOB value of the goods sourced through the assessee (i.e. the exports made by the Indian manufacturers to overseas third party customers). He also held that the assessee was a risk bearing entity and an independent entrepreneur and it could not be said that the assessee is a risk-free entity. The DRP upheld the TPO’s order though it reduced the mark up to 3% of FOB value of exports. On appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal (143 TTJ 201) upheld the stand of the TPO. On further appeal by the assessee HELD by the High Court reversing the Tribunal:

(i) The assessee’s compensation model is based on functions performed by it and the operating costs incurred by it and not on the cost of goods sourced from third party vendors in India. Allotting a margin of the value of goods sourced by third party customers from Indian exporters/vendors to compute the assessee’s profit is unjustified. To apply the TNMM, the assessee’s net profit margin realized from international transactions had to be calculated only with reference to cost incurred by it, and not by any other entity, either third party vendors or the AE. Rule 10B(1)(e) does not enable consideration or imputation of cost incurred by third parties or unrelated enterprises to compute the assessee’s net profit margin for application of the TNMM. Rule 10B(1)(e) contemplates a determination of ALP with reference to the relevant factors (cost, assets, sales etc.) of the enterprise in question, i.e. the assessee, as opposed to the AE or any third party. The approach of the TPO in essence imputes notional adjustment/income in the assessee’s hands on the basis of a fixed percentage of the FOB value of export made by unrelated party venders;

(ii) The finding that the assessee assumed substantial risk is not based on any material. The assessee made no investment in the plant, inventory, working capital, etc., nor did it bear the enterprise risk for manufacture and export of garments. It merely rendered support services in relation to the exports which were manufactured independently. Thus, attributing the costs of such third party manufacture when the assessee did not engage in that activity and when those costs were clearly not the assessee’s costs, but those of third parties, is clearly impermissible. A contrary conclusion would amount to treating the assessee as the vendor/ exporters’ partner in their manufacturing business – a completely unwarranted inference;

(iii) Tax authorities should base their conclusions that the assessee bears “significant” risks on specific facts, and not on vague generalities, such as “significant risk”, “functional risk”, “enterprise risk” etc. without any material on record to establish such findings. If such findings are warranted, they should be supported by demonstrable reason, based on objective facts and the relative evaluation of their weight and significance;
(iv) Also, as the TPO did not discard the exercise conducted by the assessee of comparing its operating profit margin with that of the comparable companies, and it was not shown that the profit margin and cost plus model adopted by the assessee was distorted, he could not have proceeded to his own determination and calculations. The TPO must first reject the assessment carried out by the assessee before making further alterations. Where all elements of a proper TNMM are detailed and disclosed in the assessee’s study reports, care should be taken by the tax administrators and authorities to analyze them in detail and then proceed to record reasons why some or all of them are unacceptable.

Source: ITAT Online
 

Tuesday, December 17, 2013

S. 40(a)(ia) TDS Disallowance: CBDT Issues Circular To Clarify Stand

S. 40(a)(ia) TDS Disallowance: CBDT Issues Circular To Clarify Stand

The CBDT has issued a Circular No. 10/DV/2013 dated 15.12.2013 in which it has analyzed the controversy created by recent judgements on the question whether the term “payable” in s. 40(a)(ia) includes the amounts that have already been paid during the year or it refers only to the amounts outstanding as at the year end. It is noted that while the Special Bench of the Tribunal in Merilyn Shipping 136 ITD 23 (SB) and the Allahabad High Court in Vector Shipping has taken the view that the disallowance in s. 40(a)(ia) does not apply to amounts that are already paid, a contrary view has been taken by the Calcutta High Court in Crescent Export Syndicate/ Md. Jakir Hossain Mondal and the Gujarat High Court in Sikandarkhan Tunvar.

The CBDT has expressed the view that the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) would apply even to the amounts that have already been paid during the year. It is also clarified that if the High Court takes a view contrary to that taken by the CBDT, the CBDT’s view would not apply in that jurisdiction though steps should be taken to decide whether a SLP should be filed or legislative amendments made.

S. 10A/10AA/10B: CBDT Takes Serious View On Non-Compliance By AO Of Circular

The CBDT has issued Instruction No. 17/2013 (F.No.178/84/2012-ITA.I) dated 19.11.2013 in which it has noted that the Assessing Officers are not following the clarifications given in Circular No. 01/2013, dated 17.1.2013. In the said Circular, the CBDT has clarified various contentious issues relating to export of computer software and claim of deduction under sections 10A, 10AA and 10B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In a stern tone, the CBDT has “advised” the Assessing Officers to follow the contents of Circular in letter and spirit and not to take a divergent view. It has also directed the Assessing Officers not to file further appeals in cases where orders were passed prior to the issue of the Circular.
Instruction No. 17/2013 (F.NO.178/84/2012-ITA.I) dated 19.11.2013
1. A clarificatory Circular No. 01/2013, dated 17-1-2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Circular’) was issued by CBDT to address various contentious issues leading to tax disputes in cases of entities engaged in export of computer software which are availing tax-benefits under sections 10A, 10AA and 10B of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

2. Instances have been reported where the Assessing Officers are not following the clarifications so issued and are taking a divergent view even in cases where the clarifications are directly applicable.

3. The undersigned is directed to convey that the field authorities are advised to follow the contents of Circular in letter and spirit. It is also advised that further appeals should not be filed in cases where orders were passed prior to issue of Circular but the issues giving rise to the disputes have been clarified by the Circular

Monday, December 9, 2013

Crossed Cheque Vs. Account Payee Cheque - Sec 40A(3)

IT : So far as compliance with requirement of section 40A(3) is concerned, payment made by a crossed cheque cannot be considered as payment made by account payee cheque
■■■
[2013] 39 taxmann.com 130 (Rajkot - Trib.)
IN THE ITAT RAJKOT BENCH
Rajmoti Industries
v.
Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle -2, Rajkot*
T.K. SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER 
AND D.K. SRIVASTAVA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
IT APPEAL NOS. 1315 (RAJKOT) OF 2010 
& 433 (RAJKOT) OF 2011
[ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 & 2008-09]
SEPTEMBER  30, 2013 
Section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business disallowance - Cash payment exceeding prescribed limits [Payment by crossed cheque] - Assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 - Whether so far as compliance with requirement of section 40A(3) is concerned, payment made by a crossed cheque cannot be considered as payment made by account payee cheque - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, where assessee made payments for purchases in excess of Rs. 20,000 in one day by issuing a crossed cheque, there being no fulfilment of requirements of section 40A(3), authorities below were justified in disallowing said payments - Held, yes [Para 14] [In favour of revenue]
Circulars and Notifications : Circular No. 1/2007, dated 27-4-2007
FACTS
 
 The assessee firm was engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of edible oil. It filed return declaring certain taxable income.
 During assessment proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee-firm had purchased oil for which payments exceeding Rs. 20,000 were made to 'S' otherwise than by an account payee cheque drawn on a bank or account payee bank draft.
 The Assessing Officer thus invoked provisions of section 40A(3) and disallowed said payments.
 The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed said disallowance.
 The assessee filed instant appeal contending that the provisions of section 40A(3) as they existed immediately before the assessment year 2007-08 required payments to be made by crossed cheque and not by account payee cheque. According to assessee, the purchases were genuine for which payments were made through crossed-cheques and, therefore, the impugned disallowance ought to be deleted.
HELD
 
 Section 40A(3) deals with expenses not deductible in certain circumstances. Prior to assessment year under appeal, i.e., AY 2007-08, section 40A(3)/(4) mandated disallowance of 20 per cent of any expenditure if payment exceeding twenty thousand rupees was made, against such expenditure, otherwise than by "a crossed cheque drawn on bank or by a crossed bank draft".
 The aforesaid provisions were amended with effect from 13-7-2006 to substitute the expression 'a crossed cheque drawn on a bank or by a crossed bank draft' in sub-sections (3) and (4) of section 40A, by 'an account payee cheque drawn on a bank or account payee bank draft'.
 The reasons for amendments made in section 40A(3) and the purpose that they seek to achieve have been explained in Circular No. 1/2007 dated 27-4-2007 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. [Para 10]
 The amendments made in section 40A(3) are intended to enable the Income tax authorities to track the transactions between the assessee and the payee in order to ensure that they are properly recorded and accounted for not only by the assessee but by the payee also.
 The aforesaid object would be completely frustrated if an assessee claiming deduction of expenditure was allowed to make payments in respect thereof in a manner different from the one prescribed in section 40A(3). The legislative policy, which is so clearly and unambiguously expressed in section 40A(3), cannot be allowed to be diluted so as to frustrate the object that it seeks to achieve.
 Unquestionably, the amendments have been carried out in section 40A(3) for strict enforcement and compliance. The fact that they are intended for strict compliance is also evident from the fact that they are not subject to any reasonable cause or exception.
 If an assessee seeks to claim deduction of any expenditure involving payments exceeding Rs. 20,000, he must ensure that such payments are made as per prescription of section 40A(3) else the amount claimed as deduction would not qualify for deduction.
 It is well-established that when law requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, it should then be done in that manner else it should be ignored. [Para 11]
 It was contended by the assessee that the term 'account payee cheque' used in section 40A(3) has neither been defined in the Act nor in the Negotiable Instruments Act and hence 'crossed cheques' issued by the assessee in the name of 'S' should be taken as sufficient compliance of the requirement of section 40A(3).
 The aforesaid submission cannot be accepted. Circular issued by the CBDT (supra) refers to the instructions issued by the Reserve Bank of India to the banks in which the difference between a crossed cheque and account payee cheque has been brought out. While account payee cheque is credited by the drawee bank to the bank account of the payee and none else, crossed cheque can be negotiated and thus can be credited by the drawee bank to the bank account of a person other than the payee. Account payee cheque is well covered by the definition of 'cheque' as given in section 6 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with section 5 thereof.
 In this view of the matter, payments made by a crossed cheque cannot be considered as payment by account payee cheque. Law requires payments to be made by an account payee cheque and not by a crossed cheque. In this view of the matter, all the arguments taken by the assessee in this behalf are rejected. [Para 12]
 Another submission of the assessee was that the purchases in respect of which impugned payments have been made were genuine and, therefore, section 40A(3) cannot be invoked. Such a plea cannot be accepted for the detailed reasons given by a co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in T.G. Mutha v. ITO [1995] 54 ITD 460 (Pune).
 Besides, section 40A(3) is neither subject to any reasonable cause nor to any exception. Once payment exceeding Rs. 20,000 is shown to have been made otherwise than by account payee cheque drawn on a bank or account payee bank draft, the expenditure in respect of which such payment has been made cannot be allowed as deduction. [Para 13]
 The assessee-firm has made impugned payments exceeding Rs. 20,000 in a day for purchases made by it from 'S' and claimed deduction in respect thereof while computing its profits. It is admitted by the assessee that the impugned payments exceeding Rs. 20,000 were made otherwise than by account payee cheque drawn on a bank or account payee bank draft.
 Thus, all the conditions for the applicability of section 40A(3) are fully satisfied. Therefore, the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the impugned disallowance in both the assessment years under appeal, cannot be interfered with. The appeal filed by the assessee is accordingly dismissed. [Para 14]
CASES REFERRED TO
 
T.G. Mutha v. ITO [1995] 54 ITD 460 (Pune) (para 13).
R.D. Lalchandani for the Appellant. Dr. Jayant B. Jhaveri for the Respondent.
ORDER
 
D.K. Srivastava, Accountant Member - The appeal bearing ITA No. 1315/Rjt/2010 filed by the assessee relating to assessment year 2007-08 arises out of the order passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-III, Rajkot on 26.06.2010 while the other appeal bearing ITA No.433/Rjt/2011 filed by the assessee arises out of another order passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-IV, Ahmedabad on 05.09.2011 relating to assessment year 2008-09. Facts, issues and the grounds of appeal in both the appeals are common. It is therefore convenient to dispose of both the appeals by a consolidated order.
2. In ITA No.1315/Rjt/2010, the assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:—
"1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 2672198/- under the provisions of section 40(A)3 of the Act. The disallowance is not justified."
3. In ITA No. 433/Rjt/2011, the assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:—
"1. The Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 80,00,384/- under the provisions of section 40(A)3 of the Act.
The confirmation of the disallowance is not justified."
 
4. The assessee is a firm. It is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of edible oil. Return of income was filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2007-08 on 31.10.2007 returning total income at Rs. 83,28,780/-. Perusal of the assessment order for assessment year 2007-08 shows that the Investigation Wing of the Income-tax Department had carried out investigations in the case of M/s. Shree Swaraj Oil Mill, Jam-Khambhalia, during which it was noticed that the assessee-firm had purchased oil for which payments exceeding Rs. 20,000/- were made by the assessee otherwise than by an account payee cheque drawn on a bank or account payee bank draft. The Assessing Officer invoked section 40A(3) and called upon the assessee to explain as to why a sum of Rs. 26,72,198/- should not be disallowed u/s 40A(3). After considering the submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer disallowed the said sum u/s 40A(3) with the following observations:—
'4.5 I have carefully considered the reply of the assessee and the submissions made by them earlier. The reply and the arguments placed before me during the assessment proceedings are not acceptable. The assessee's argument that the cheques issued to M/s. Swaraja Oil Mill (Seller) were A/c Payee, which were deposited in A/c of Seller. However, one of the partner of M/s. Swaraja Oil Mill admitted before the ADIT (Inv) that they have encashed the entire payment received from M/s. Shree Rajmoti Industries through different Shroffs. Since M/s. Swaraj Oil Mill has received the payment, encashing the cheques through Shroff clearly shows that cheques were not A/c Payee cheques because the A/c Payee cheques can not be encashed through Shroffs. Also the cheques allegedly issued by the assessee have not been credited in the account of M/s. Shree Swaraj Oil Mill.
4.6 As per the provisions of Section 40A(3)(a) as applicable before 13.07.2006;
"Where the assessee incurs any expenditure in respect of which payment is made in a sum exceeding twenty thousand rupees otherwise than by a crossed cheques drawn on a Bank or by a crossed payee Bank Draft, twenty percent of such expenditure shall not be allowed as an expenditure."
As per the provisions of Section 40A(3)(a) as applicable after 13.07.2006;
"Where the assessee incurs any expenditure in respect of which payment is made in a sum exceeding twenty thousand rupees otherwise than by an Account Payee cheque drawn on a Bank or by a Account payee Bank Draft, twenty percent of such expenditure shall not be allowed as an expenditure."
4.7 Analysing the above sections before and after 13.07.2006, I find that the assessee Firm has violated the provisions of section 40A(3)(a) by making payment otherwise than by A/c. payee cheque after 13.07.2006. The details submitted by the assessee do not conclusively substantiate the claim of the assessee that the payments were made by an A/c Payee cheques. The report of the ADIT(Inv) also support the stand of the Department.
4.8 Therefore, the payments made by the assessee to M/s. Shree Swaraj Oil Mill, Jam-Khambhalia after 13.07.2006 amounting to Rs. 1,33,60,988/- are otherwise than by a A/c. Payee cheque and thereby violate the provisions of Section 40A(3)(a) of the Act. Since the submission made by the assessee in response to the show cause notice dtd. 18.12.2009 is not acceptable and considering the findings made by the ADIT (Investigations)-2, Rajkot, I, therefore, disallow 20% of the payments made, which comes to Rs.26,72,198/- and add to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars/concealment of income are initiated.'
 
5. Return for assessment year 2008-09 was filed by the assessee on 30.09.2008 returning total income at Rs.84,49,900/- The investigations carried out by the Investigation Wing of the Income-tax Department in the case of M/s Shree Swaraj Oil Mill revealed that a sum of Rs.80,00,384/- was paid by the assessee to the said firm, namely, M/s. Shree Swaraj Oil Mill on account of purchases made from the said firm, otherwise than by account payee cheque drawn on a bank or account payee bank draft. The impugned sum was therefore disallowed by the Assessing Officer u/s 40A(3) in assessment year 2008-09 also with the following observations:—
'5.4 On the basis of all above facts and in the circumstances, there is enough evidence to point out that there is a violation of provisions of section 40A(3)(a) of the Act and therefore the payment made to M/s. Shree Swaraj Oil Mill, Jam Khambhalia amounting the Rs. 80,00,384/- are otherwise than by Account Payee Cheques, and thereby, there is a violation of provisions of section 40A(3)(a) of the Act. It is also noticed that the legislature in terms has removed the provisions of Rule 6DD(j) keeping in view the intention that main purpose of introducing provisions of section 40A(3) was to curb proliferation of black money. The payment for purchase of goods is covered by section 40A(3) of the Act as has been held by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Hari Chand Virendra Paul v. CIT 140 ITR. The provisions of section 40A(3) are construed strictly as has been held by various courts. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Attar Singh Gurmukh Singh etc. v. ITO (SC) 191 ITR 667 (PP. 673) has held as under:—
"In interpreting a taxing statute, the court cannot be oblivious of the proliferation of black money which is under circulation in our country. Any restraint intended to curb the chances and opportunities to use or create black money should not be regarded as curtailing the freedom of trade or business."
Further, the Hon'ble ITAT, Pune Bench in T G Mutha v. ITO (ITAT, Pune) 54 ITD 460 has held as under:
"It would amount to defeating objective of enactment, if claim allowed on the basis of transaction is genuine, identity of party established etc."
The decision of Hon'ble ITAT Pune Bench makes it clear that only because of transaction is genuine, and identity of party is established, if claim is allowed, it would amount to defeating the objective of enactment. Keeping in view the objectives of the enactment as discussed above, which is to curb proliferation of black money, no concession can be granted to the appellant on the grounds of commercial expediency.
To highlight the issue, further observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Attar Singh Gurmukh Singh are re-produced hereunder:—
"The Tribunal in Sri Renukeswara Rice Mills v. ITO (2005) 93 TTJ (Bang) 912 referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Attar Singh Gurmukh Singh v. ITO [1991] 191 ITR 667 (SC), observed:—
The Hon'ble Supreme Court noted that the intention to make payment by crossed cheque or crossed DD is to enable the assessing authority to ascertain that the payment is genuine and not out of the undisclosed source. It is also noted that section 40A(3) is intended to regulate business transactions and to prevent the use of unaccounted monies or to reduce the chances of use of black money for business transactions. In the present case, it is seen that the assessee for purchase of rice, paid the amount directly to the bank account of the payee. The effect of issue of crossed cheques/DD is that the payee named therein receives the payment ;through banking channels. The purpose is dual. In the first instance, it is to see that the payee and payee alone receives the payment and to ensure that the payment is routed through bank channel so as to trace the origin and conclusion of the transaction."
6. In view of the above, 100% of the purchases made otherwise than by account payee cheque, to the tune of Rs.80,00,384/- is disallowed and added to the assessee's total income.'
 
6. Aggrieved by the impugned disallowances/additions made by the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld CIT(A). The ld CIT(A) however confirmed the impugned disallowances/additions made by the Assessing Officer for the detailed reasons given by him in his appellate orders separately passed for both the assessment years under appeal.
 
7. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal.
 
8. At the time of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee fairly submitted that the impugned sums in both the assessment years were paid by the assessee-firm otherwise than by account payee cheque drawn on a bank or account payee bank draft. He however submitted that the provisions of section 40A(3) as they existed immediately before the assessment year 2007-08 required payments to be made by crossed-cheque and not by account payee cheque. He contended that account payee cheques have not been defined in the Income-tax Act or in the Negotiable Instruments Act. He also submitted that the genuineness of purchases, for which impugned payments have been made, has not been doubted by the Assessing Officer or by the ld. CIT(A). According to him, the purchases were genuine for which payments were made through crossed-cheques and therefore the impugned disallowance ought to be deleted.
 
9. In reply, the ld. Departmental Representative supported the order passed by the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A).
 
10. We have heard both the parties and carefully considered their submissions. Section 40A(3) deals with expenses not deductible in certain circumstances. Prior to assessment year under appeal, i.e., AY 2007-08, section 40A(3)/(4) mandated disallowance of 20% of any expenditure if payment exceeding twenty thousand rupees was made, against such expenditure, otherwise than by "a crossed cheque drawn on bank or by a crossed bank draft". The aforesaid provisions were amended with effect from 13th July 2006 to substitute the expression 'a crossed cheque drawn on a bank or by a crossed bank draft' in sub-sections (3) and (4) of section 40A, by 'an account payee cheque drawn on a bank or account payee bank draft'. The reasons for amendments made in section 40A(3) and the purpose that they seek to achieve have been explained in Circular No. 1/2007 dated 27.4.2007 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes as under:
"14. Expenses or payments not deductible in certain circumstances - Section 40A(3)
14.1 The existing provisions contained in sub-section (3) and sub-section (4) of section 40A provide that twenty per cent. of the expenditure shall not be allowed as a deduction if payment in a sum exceeding twenty thousand rupees is made, against such expenditure, otherwise than by a crossed cheque or crossed bank draft.
14.2 A crossed cheque or crossed bank draft is not a non-negotiable instrument. This has, at times, resulted in crossed cheques being endorsed making it difficult to trace final payee and thus defeating the provisions of section 40A(3). However, as per the RBI's instructions to commercial banks, an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft cannot be credited to any account other than the account of the payee. The Act has accordingly amended the aforementioned sub-section (3) and sub-section (4) to substitute the expression 'a crossed cheque drawn on a bank or by a crossed bank draft', in both the sub-sections, by 'an account payee cheque drawn on a bank or account payee bank draft'.
14.3 These amendments take effect from 13th July, 2006."
 
11. The amendments made in section 40A(3) are intended to enable the Income-tax authorities to track the transactions between the assessee and the payee in order to ensure that they are properly recorded and accounted for not only by the assessee but by the payee also. The aforesaid object would be completely frustrated if an assessee claiming deduction of expenditure was allowed to make payments in respect thereof in a manner different from the one prescribed in section 40A(3). The legislative policy, which is so clearly and unambiguously expressed in section 40A(3), cannot be allowed to be diluted so as to frustrate the object that it seeks to achieve. Unquestionably, the amendments have been carried out in section 40A(3) for strict enforcement and compliance. The fact that they are intended for strict compliance is also evident from the fact that they are not subject to any reasonable cause or exception. If an assessee seeks to claim deduction of any expenditure involving payments exceeding Rs. 20,000/-, he must ensure that such payments are made as per prescription of section 40A(3) else the amount claimed as deduction would not qualify for deduction. It is well-established that when law requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, it should then be done in that manner else it should be ignored.
 
12. At the time of hearing, it was contended by the ld. counsel for the assessee that the term "account payee cheque" used in section 40A(3) has neither been defined in the Income-tax Act nor in the Negotiable Instruments Act and hence "crossed cheques" issued by the assessee in the name of M/s Shree Swaraj Oil Mill should be taken as sufficient compliance of the requirement of section 40A(3). We are unable to agree with the aforesaid submissions. Circular issued by the CBDT (supra) refers to the instructions issued by the Reserve bank of India to the banks in which the difference between a crossed cheque and account payee cheque has been brought out. While account payee cheque is credited by the drawee bank to the bank account of the payee and none else, crossed cheque can be negotiated and thus can be credited by the drawee bank to the bank account of a person other than the payee. Account payee cheque is well covered by the definition of "cheque" as given in section 6 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with section 5 thereof. In this view of the matter, payments made by a crossed cheque cannot be considered as payment by account payee cheque. Law requires payments to be made by an account payee cheque and not by a crossed cheque. In this view of the matter, all the arguments taken by the assessee in this behalf are rejected.
 
13. Another submission of the assessee at the time of hearing was that the purchases in respect of which impugned payments have been made were genuine and therefore section 40A(3) cannot be invoked. Such a plea cannot be accepted for the detailed reasons given by a co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in T G Mutha v. ITO 54 ITD 460 and other decisions referred to by the AO in the assessment order. Besides, section 40A(3) is neither subject to any reasonable cause nor to any exception. Once payment exceeding Rs. 20,000/- is shown to have been made otherwise than by account payee cheque drawn on a bank or account payee bank draft, the expenditure in respect of which such payment has been made cannot be allowed as deduction.
 
14. The assessee-firm has made impugned payments exceeding Rs. 20,000/- in a day for purchases made by it from M/s Shree Swaraj Oil Mill and claimed deduction in respect thereof while computing its profits. It is admitted by the ld. counsel for the assessee that the impugned payments exceeding Rs. 20,000/- were made otherwise than by account payee cheque drawn on a bank or account payee bank draft. Thus all the conditions for the applicability of section 40A(3) are fully satisfied. We are therefore unable to interfere with the order passed by the CIT(A) confirming the impugned disallowance in both the assessment years under appeal. His orders in this behalf are confirmed. Both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed.
 
Source: Taxmann

Friday, December 6, 2013

Consideration for supply of software which is not embedded in equipment is taxable as “royalty” - ITAT Mumbai

Reliance Infocom Ltd. (now known as Reliance Communications Ltd.) & others. vs. DDIT(IT). ITA No. 730/Mum/09, Date of Decision 06/09/2013, ITAT-Mumbai
Facts : Briefly stated, Reliance Infocomm Ltd., now known as Reliance Communications Ltd. wanted to establish wireless telecommunications network in India. As a part of that it has entered into a Wireless Network General Terms and Conditions contract and Wireless Software contract dated 3 1.07.2002 with Lucent Technologies Hindustan Pvt. Ltd. (LTHPL), an Indian company of M/s. Lucent group, USA. Wireless software Assignment and Assumption agreement dated 05.08.2002 with LTHPL and Lucent Technologies GRL LLC (LTGL) USA towards supply of software required for telecom network. When Reliance placed first supply orders for software for an amount of US$1 1,06,56,855, it made applications under section 195(2) before DDIT-2(1) Mumbai requesting payment for purchase of software without deduction of tax at source. It was Reliance’s contention that it was for purchase of software and LTGL has no PE in India and as per DTAA between India and USA, the amount paid is not taxable in India. AO after examining the details of agreements held that the assessee was getting only license to use the software and is in the nature of royalty, taxable at 20% in India under the provisions of Income tax Act 1961. Not only in the case of Lucent, Reliance also similarly placed orders with various other suppliers of telecom software in other countries and sought no deduction certificates on similar contentions. AO passed similar orders in all the cases where Reliance was to remit the monies over a period of time. After deducting tax as directed by the AO, Reliance however preferred appeals before the Ld.CIT(A) as per the then existing provisions of section 248 of the IT Act. The learned CIT(A), vide his orders, held that the amounts paid cannot be considered as royalty as Reliance purchased ‘goods’ which is a copyrighted article and so, since the seller do not have PE in India the amount is not taxable. Accordingly, he gave relief to Reliance. The Revenue is aggrieved on these orders. The lead order of the AO and CIT(A) pertains to ITA No. 837/Mum/2007 in which the AO’ order under section 195(2) dated 12.03.2003 was considered by the CIT(A) in his appeal No. CITA XXXI/DDIT (IT) 2(1)/IT – 448/02-03/06-07 dated 26.10.2006. It was admitted that the facts are more or less similar to the above appeal and main arguments were rendered in this appeal.
Held :- In view of the agreement and various judicial pronouncements the hon’ble tribunal has held that there is a distinction between a case where the software is supplied along with hardware as part of the equipment and there is no separate sale of the software and a case where the software is sold separately. In the case, where the software is an integral part of the supply of equipment, the consideration for that is not assessable as “royalty”.
 
However, in a case where the software is sold separately, the consideration for it is assessable as “royalty”. On facts, the assessee had acquired the software independent of the equipment. It had received a license to use the copyright in the software belonging to the non-resident and the supplier continued to be the owner of the copyright and all other intellectual property rights. As there was a transfer of the right to use the copyright, the payment made by Reliance to Lucent was “for the use of or the right to use copyright” and constituted “royalty” under s. 9(1)(vi) of the Act and Article 12(3) of the India-USA DTAA.
 
There is a distinction between a case where the software is supplied along with hardware as part of the equipment and there is no separate sale of the software and a case where the software is sold separately. Where the software is an integral part of the supply of equipment, the consideration for that is not assessable as “royalty”. However, in a case where the software is sold separately, the consideration for it is assessable as “royalty”. On facts, the assessee had acquired the software independent of the equipment. It had received a license to use the copyright in the software belonging to the non-resident. The non-resident supplier continued to be the owner of the copyright and all other intellectual property rights. As there was a transfer of the right to use the copyright, the payment made by Reliance to Lucent was “for the use of or the right to use copyright” and constituted “royalty” under s. 9(1)(vi) and Article 12(3) of the India-USA DTAA (Synopsis International 212 Taxman 454 (Kar), Samsung Electronics 345 ITR 494 (Kar), Lucent Technologies 348 ITR 196 (Kar), Citrix Systems 343 ITR 1 (AAR) & Microsoft/Gracemac Corp 42 SOT 550 (Del) followed).
 
Source: ITAT Online

Friday, November 29, 2013

Expenditure of Software upgrades/updates subject to obsolescence is revenue expenditure

Oracle India Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)


 S. 37(1): Expenditure on acquiring master copy of software subject to obsolescence is deductible as revenue expenditure
 
The assessee entered into a license agreement with Oracle Corp under which it acquired a non-exclusive & non-assignable right to duplicate software products which were owned by Oracle Corp and to sub-license the same to parties in India. The assessee paid recurring royalty of 30% for the said right. In addition to the royalty, the assessee periodically paid an amount towards “expenditure on import of software master copy”. The said master copy was used to replicate the software. The assessee claimed that the said master copies were versions of Oracle’s new product offerings which had very accelerated obsolescence and that at any point of time it was not possible to say whether the version will be current for one day or one month. The AO allowed a deduction for the recurring royalty but held that the expenditure for acquiring the software master copy was capital expenditure. On appeal, the CIT(A) reversed the AO on the ground that owing to obsolescence, there was no enduring benefit as there were frequent corrections and up-gradation of the software. On appeal by the department, the Tribunal reversed the CIT(A) and held that the expenditure was capital in nature on the ground that the master copy was an asset of enduring benefit. On appeal by the assessee, HELD reversing the Tribunal:

The assessee’s claim that the master copies had high accelerated obsolescence and that even at the point of time of import it was difficult to say whether the version would be replaced by a new or updated version after one day or a month had not been disproved. Also the facts showed that there were periodical imports of the master copies and that the average price per copy was minimal. This was not a case where the master copies contained operating or system software, which normally did not require frequent up-gradation or changes. It is also not the case of an assessee which is the end user of software. It is a case where the assessee is required to repeatedly pay for the master copy media in view of frequent newer or updated versions of the application software from time to time. Once newer or better version of the application software is available, the earlier version is not saleable and does not have any market value for the seller i.e. the assessee. Also, as per the “matching concept” in accountancy, while determining whether expenditure is capital or revenue in nature, the question whether the expenditure would create an asset which is of value in further assessment periods and should be amortised (i.e. depreciated) as long as it has value (subject to the statutory provisions) requires to be considered. If the expenditure does lead to creation of an asset but of a limited or short life, it has to be treated as a liability and not as a fixed asset. The said expenditure cannot be valued for price for future financial years (Oracle Software 320 ITR 546 (SC), Ashahi India Safety Glass 346 ITR 329 (Del), G.E. Capital Services 300 ITR 420 (Del), O.K. Play 346 ITR 57 (P&H), IAEC Pumps 232 ITR 316 (SC) referred)

Source: ITAT Online

Tuesday, November 26, 2013

Non-exclusive & non-transferable license to use customized software not taxable as “royalty” - Delhi HC


Contrast to decision of Karnataka HC in Samsung Electronics 345 ITR 494, Delhi HC has held that ‘Payment for non-exclusive & non-transferable license to use ‘Software’ is not taxable as royalty under India-US DTAA.  

This goes against the basis applied in Reliance Infocom/ Lucent Technologies (ITAT Mum) where it was held that Ericson AB 343 ITR 370 (Del) & Nokia Networks OY 25 taxmann.com 225 applied only to cases where the software was embedded in the hardware and not to pure license cases.
 

Conclusion is, CONFUSION STILL PREVAILS.

 


The assessee, a USA company, set up a branch office in India for the supply of software called “MX”. The software was customized for the requirements of the customer (not “shrink wrap”). The Indian branch imported the software package in the form of floppy disks or CDs and delivered it to the customer. It also installed the software and trained the customers. The AO & CIT(A) held that the software was a “copyright” and the income from its license was assessable as “royalty” under Article 12 of the India-USA DTAA. On appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal held, following Motorola 270 ITR (AT) (SB) 62, that the income from license of software was not taxable as “royalty”. Before the High Court, the Department argued that in view of CIT vs. Samsung Electronics 345 ITR 494 (Kar), the right to make a copy of the software and storing it amounted to copyright work u/s 14(1) of the Copyright Act and payment made for the grant of a license for the said purpose would constitute royalty. HELD by the High Court dismissing the appeal:

 

In order to qualify as a royalty payment under Article 12(3) of the India-USA DTAA, it is necessary to establish that there is a transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of any licence) in respect of a copyright of a literary, artistic or scientific work. There is a clear distinction between royalty paid on transfer of copyright rights and consideration for transfer of copyrighted articles. Right to use a copyrighted article or product with the owner retaining his copyright, is not the same thing as transferring or assigning rights in relation to the copyright. The enjoyment of some or all the rights which the copyright owner has, is necessary to invoke the royalty definition. Viewed from this angle, a non-exclusive and non-transferable licence enabling the use of a copyrighted product cannot be construed as an authority to enjoy any or all of the enumerated rights ingrained in Article 12 of DTAA. Where the purpose of the licence or the transaction is only to restrict use of the copyrighted product for internal business purpose, it would not be legally correct to state that the copyright itself or right to use copyright has been transferred to any extent. The parting of intellectual property rights inherent in and attached to the software product in favour of the licensee/customer is what is contemplated by the Treaty. Merely authorizing or enabling a customer to have the benefit of data or instructions contained therein without any further right to deal with them independently does not, amount to transfer of rights in relation to copyright or conferment of the right of using the copyright. The transfer of rights in or over copyright or the conferment of the right of use of copyright implies that the transferee/licensee should acquire rights either in entirety or partially co-extensive with the owner/ transferor who divests himself of the rights he possesses pro tanto. The license granted to the licensee permitting him to download the computer programme and storing it in the computer for his own use is only incidental to the facility extended to the licensee to make use of the copyrighted product for his internal business purpose. The said process is necessary to make the programme functional and to have access to it and is qualitatively different from the right contemplated by Article 12 because it is only integral to the use of copyrighted product. Apart from such incidental facility, the licensee has no right to deal with the product just as the owner would be in a position to do. Consequently there is no transfer of any right in respect of copyright by the assessee and it is a case of mere transfer of a copyrighted article. The payment is for a copyrighted article and represents the purchase price of an article and cannot be considered as royalty either under the Income-tax Act or under the DTAA (Ericson AB 343 ITR 370 (Del) & Nokia Networks OY 25 taxmann.com 225 followed; Samsung Electronics 345 ITR 494 (Kar) not followed)
 
Source: ITAT Online

Monday, November 25, 2013

No Service Tax on Electricity Charges (Either from Grid or thru DG Set) reimbursement from Tenants - CESTAT

2013-TIOL-1751-CESTAT-MUM

 
Appeal No.ST/383, 384, 416, 469 & 504/12-Mum
Arising out of Order-in-Original/Appeal No. 27-28-/P.III/ST/ Commr /2011-12, P.III/RS/184/2012, 56-57/P.III/ST/ Commr /2011-12 & 63/P.III/ST/ Commr /2011-12,
Dated : 29.02.2012, 30.5.2012, 29.03.2012 respectively
Passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax Pune.III
Date of Hearing: 18.4.2013
Date of Decision: 18.4.2013
1) M/s ICC REALITY (INDIA) PVT LTD
2) M/s INDIA LAND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD
3) M/s CHITRALI PROPERTIES PVT LTD
4) M/s EON HINJEWADI INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD
5) M/s VANSUM INDUSTRIES
Vs
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE-III
Appellants Rep by: Shri Bhrat Raichandai , Adv. with Shri V Jain, CA for (sr.no. 1,2 & 4) Shri J C Patel, Adv. (sr.no.3) And Shri Shushant Murthy, Adv. (sr.no.5)

Respondents Rep by: Shri Rakesh Goyal , Addl. Commr (A.R.) And Shri P N Das, Commr .(A.R.)
CORAM: S S Kang, Vice President
S K Gaule , Member( T)

 
ST - Rule 5 of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 - Applicant collecting rent and paying
 
ST under Renting of Immovable Property Service - however, electricity charges collected from tenants not included in value of taxable service – As E lectricity is goods chargeable to duty under CE Tariff as well as under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002, therefore, the supply of electricity to tenant amounts to sale of goods and not supply of service – In terms of Notfn . 12/03-ST value of goods supplied by service provider to service recipient is exempt from service tax – Electricity charges cannot form part of taxable value – Orders set aside and appeals allowed: CESTAT [ para 9]
Appeals allowed
ORDER NO.A/968-972/13/CSTB/C-I
Per: S S Kang:
Heard both sides Common issue is involved and therefore, these appeals are being taken up together for disposal.
 
2. The appellants are engaged in providing services of renting of immovable property. Renting of immovable property is chargeable to service tax under the provisions of Section 65(90a) of the Finance Act. The appellants are paying appropriate service tax in respect of rent received from the tenants. Show-cause notices were issued to the appellants on the ground that the appellants had received certain amounts as reimbursement of electricity charges from the tenants. Show-cause notices were issued invoked the provisions of Rule 5 of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 which provides if there are expenditure or costs are incurred by the service provider in the course of providing taxable service, all such expenditure or costs shall be treated as consideration for the taxable service provided or to be provided and shall be included in the value for the purpose of charging service tax.
 
3. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand by adding the amounts which are as reimbursement of electricity charges from the tenants in the assessable value for the purpose of service tax as provider of renting of immovable property.
 
4. The contention of the appellants is that as per the Lease Agreement, tenants are to pay the actual electricity expenses to the MSEB. In some cases when the tenants default in payment of electricity charges, the appellants will pay from their own pocket and subsequently recover the electricity charges from their tenants. In cases where the tenants paid the electricity charges late to the appellants, the appellants also charging nominal interest on such amount. In some cases, the appellants are having one main meter in respect of electricity supply and the appellants are providing sub meters to the tenants and as per the reading of sub meters the appellants have collected the electricity charges and are paying to the State Electricity Board. In the case of M/s. Vansum Industries , the appellants are also supplying electricity from the generator set when there was failure of power supply from the Electricity Board and in such cases the appellants were charging on commercial rate.
 
5. The contention of the appellants is that the charges in respect of electricity which were recovered on actual basis are nothing to do with the service of renting of immovable property. The charges are to be paid by the tenants directly to the Electricity Board or where the electricity is supplied by the appellants the tenants are to pay on actual consumption. The back up is available where the tenants opted to avail such facility provided by the landlord.
6. The contention of the appellants is that in the case of M/s. Panchshil Tech Park Pvt. Ltd. the adjudicating authority has dropped the proceedings initiated which were on the same ground vide Order-in-Original No.22-23-24/P.III/ST/ Commr /2011-12 dated 28.11.2011 by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune.III . The appellants also received information under the RTI Act that the Revenue has accepted that order. The appellants relied upon the Pune III Commissionerate communication dated 26.09.2012. The appellants are also situated in the same Commissionerate . The appellants also submitted that the electricity being goods, supply of electricity does not amount to service. Under the Central Excise Tariff Act, electricity is covered under Chapter 27 of the Tariff and under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002, electricity is chargeable to Nil rate of tax as per Schedule A 20 to the Act. Hence the charges which are on actual basis recovered from the tenants towards the electricity charges and paid to the Electricity Board or retained by the appellants as the appellants were providing back up by way of providing generator set cannot be added to the assessable value for the purpose of service tax as provider of renting of immovable property service. Appellant also relied upon the provisions of Notification No.12/03 ST dated 20.6.2003 to submit that value of goods sold by service provider to service recipient is exempted from service tax. Appellants have not availed any credit in respect of goods sold i.e. electricity.
 
7. Revenue reiterated the findings of the lower authorities and submitted that the appellants are liable to pay service tax on the gross amounts as the appellants were receiving the amounts for consumption of electricity by the tenants and these amounts are part of renting of immovable property. Hence the appellants have to pay service tax on such amounts also as provider of immovable property service. The appellants are providing bunch of services such as renting of immovable property, maintenance and repair services and provides electricity. The main activity of the appellants is renting of immovable property. Hence all the considerations received in respect of renting of immovable property including electricity charges are chargeable to service tax as provider of renting of immovable property. The Revenue also submitted that as per the Lease Agreement, the landlord has to provide electricity load to the tenants and the appellants also undertook to 100% generator back up and the tenants have to pay to the landlord a specific amount to be deposited to the appellants account in respect of such facility. In view of this, the demands are rightly made.
 
8. We find that the appellants are engaged in renting of immovable property and paying service tax. Show-cause notices were issued on the ground that the appellants were receiving certain amounts of reimbursement of charges from their clients while renting of immovable properties. Therefore, such charges are to be added to the assessable value for the purpose of service tax as provider of renting of immovable properties.
 
9. We have gone through the Lease Agreements. As per the terms and conditions of the Lease Agreements, the tenants have to pay electricity charges directly to the MSEB and the appellants are also providing electricity through generator set in case there is a power failure and the appellants are charging for the same. We find that electricity is specifically covered under Tariff Heading 27 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. We find that as per the provisions of Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002, electricity is also covered under Schedule A sr.no.20 and charged to Nil rate of tax. In view of this, we find the electricity is goods chargeable to duty under Central Excise Tariff as well as under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002. Therefore, the supply of electricity to tenant amounts to sale of goods and not supply of service. Further the Notification No.12/03 ST dated 20/6/2003 exempt from service tax, any value of goods supplied by service provider to service recipient. Further we find that the Commissioner of Central Excise Pune.III vide Order-in-Original dated 28.11.2011 relied upon by the appellants dropped the proceedings which were initiated on the same ground in the case of M/s. Panchshil Tech Park Ltd. The Commissioner of Central Excise in the adjudication order held that electricity is goods and chargeable to Nil excise duty. The decision of the adjudicating authority is accepted by the Revenue as per the communication dated 26.9.2012 by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune.III . The present appellants are also under the jurisdiction of Pune III Commissionerate .
 
10. In view of the above discussion, we find merit in the contention of the appellants that the electricity charges collected from the tenants cannot be formed part of the assessable value for the purpose of service tax as provider of renting of immovable properties.
 
11. Impugned orders are set aside and the appeals are allowed.
 
Source: TIOL 

FAQ on GST

Find enclosed Compilation of FAQ’s on GST for your ready reference. This is only for educational and guidance purposes and do not hold an...