Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: form 3cd :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: cpt :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: TDS :: VAT Audit :: empanelment :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: due date for vat payment :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: VAT RATES :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes
 
 
« From the Courts »
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 M.K.Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-06
 Arshia Ahmed Qureshi Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-21
 CHAUDHARY SKIN TRADING COMPANY Vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-21
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 Deputy Director Of Income Tax Vs. Virage Logic International
 Commissioner Of Income Tax-3 International Taxation Vs. Virage Logic International India
 Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-06 Vs. Moderate Leasing And Capital Services Pvt. Ltd.
 ITO vs. Vikram A. Pradhan (ITAT Mumbai)

M/s. Lloyds Register Asia (India Branch Office) 63-64 Kalpataru Square, Andheri (E),Mumbai- 400 059 Vs. The Asst. CIT 8(3) (OSD), Mumbai
June, 11th 2015
               IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                    MUMBAI BENCHES "L", MUMBAI

         Before Shri D Karunakara Rao, AM & Shri Amit Shukla, JM

                            ITA No.387/Mum/2013
                          Assessment Year : 2005-06

M/s. Lloyd's Register Asia (India            The Asst. CIT 8(3) (OSD),
Branch Office)                               Mumbai
63-64 Kalpataru Square,                Vs.
6th Floor, Kondivita Lane,
Off Andheri Kurla Road,
Andheri (E),Mumbai- 400 059
PAN AAACL9741J
            (Appellant)                                 Respondent)


                            ITA No.517/Mum/2013
                          Assessment Year : 2005-06

The Asst. CIT 8(3) (OSD),                    M/s. Lloyd's Register Asia
Mumbai                                       (India Branch Office)
                                       Vs.   Mumbai- 400 059

            (Appellant)                                 Respondent)


            Assessee By         : S/Shri S E Dastur,Nitesh Joshi,
                                  Vispit Shah
            Revenue By          : S/Shri S D Srivastava & Vivek Permpurna

Date of Hearing :01.04.2015            Date of Pronouncement : 10.06.2015

                                    ORDER

Per Amit Shukla, Judicial Member

      The aforesaid cross appeals have been filed by the either parties against the

impugned order dated 15.10.2012, passed by the CIT(A) II, Mumbai, for the

quantum of the assessment passed u/s. 143(3) for the A.Y. 2005-06.
                                           2
                                                        ITA No.387 & 517/Mum/2013

2.    At the outset, the learned senior counsel, Shri S E Dastur submitted that

ground no.3 as raised by the assessee in the memorandum of appeal is not arising

out of the order of the CIT(A), therefore, the same is not pressed. Accordingly,

ground no.3 is dismissed as not pressed.


3.    The effective grounds taken by the assessee reads as under:


      "1.    On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the
             learned CIT(A) has erred in holding the transaction of License fee,
             Management charges and IT Recharge as being considered
             between the head office and branch. In doing so he has not
             appreciated the fact that Lloyd's Register-UK is not a Head Office
             of the appellant and Lloyd's Register ­UK has filed its income tax
             return in India declaring the above source of income received from
             the appellant. He ought not to have done so.
      2.     A.    Without prejudice to ground no.1, on the facts and in the
             circumstances of the case an din law the learned CIT(A) has erred
             in holding that 50% of the total Management charges of INR
             4,42,92,316/- paid to Lloyd's Register-UK i.e.Rs.2,21,46,158/- are
             covered in the definition of Head Office Expenditure as per section
             44C of the Act and thereby restricting the allowance to the extent
             of INR 46,73,263/- and disallowing the balance INR 1,74,72,895/-.
             He ought not to have done so.
             B.      The learned CIT(A) has not appreciated the fact that the
             assessing officer erred in taxing a PE of a UK company by placing
             restrictions on deduction of Head office expenditure under section
             44C. The said restriction is not applicable in case of resident
             companies thereby discriminating by giving unfavourable tax
             treatment. He ought not to have done so."


4.    The grounds raised by the Revenue are also on the same issue, therefore,

are reproduced here under:


             "1.     On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the
             Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing 100% relief on account of addition
             made by the A.O. u/s. 44C on account of Licence Fees and
             allowing 50% relief on the addition made by the A.O. u/s. 44C on
             account of Management charges ignoring the finding given by AO
             in his assessment order.
                                          3
                                                          ITA No.387 & 517/Mum/2013

             2.     On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the
             Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the interest charged u/s. 234B of the
             I.T.Act as the issue has not been decided on merit."





5.    Briefly stated the facts of the case are that, Lloyd's Register U K is having a

subsidiary in the name Lloyd's Register Asia UK, which has an Indian branch in

India. In other words, the assessee is an Indian branch of Lloyd's Register Asia UK,

which in turn is a subsidiary of Lloyd's Register UK. The main holding company is

into the business of survey and inspection of ships, industrial inspection activity and

drawing appraisal. Earlier Lloyd's Register UK was operating in India through its

branch. From the relevant financial year (i.e. A Y 2005-06), it floated a subsidiary

company, Lloyd's Register Asia and all the Indian operations thereafter are being

carried out through branch of this entity. Lloyd's Register UK entered into a license

agreement on 16.07.2003 with all its subsidiaries all over the world, including Lloyds

Register Asia UK, whereby it has granted license to use the brand "Lloyd's Register"

i.e. use of trademark and trade name owned by Lloyd's Register UK. Besides this,

the licensor (Lloyd's Register UK) also provides general, technical and marketing

support services to all its products, which have been referred in the license

agreement as "Intellectual Property Rights". The royalty and the license fees was

payable as per Schedule VI of the license agreement, which has been incorporated

at page 3 of the appellate order and also at page 23 of the paper-book. As per the

worldwide policy, the invoices are sent from Lloyd's Register UK to Lloyd's Register

Asia UK which in turn, allocates the royalty attributable to its Indian branch. The

Indian branch pays the same to Lloyd's Register Asia UK, which in turn pays Lloyds

Register UK. Further, another "Management Services Agreement" dated 16.07.2003
                                             4
                                                           ITA No.387 & 517/Mum/2013

was entered into between Lloyd's Register UK and Lloyd's Register Asia UK for

providing services such as :


     ·   Corporate communications,
     ·   Corporate finance and group reporting services,
     ·   Group quality assurance,
     ·   Human resources,
     ·   Information technology,
     ·   Integrated business system (IBS project)
     ·   Internal audit services
     ·   Legal services
     ·   Operational management and reporting (mainly provided by regional and
         area management centres)
     ·   Risk management and secretarial services and
     ·   Taxation and treasury services.



The determination of management service fees has been enumerated in Schedule 4

of the Management Service agreement, the relevant portion of which has been

incorporated by the CIT(A) at pages 3 & 4. During the relevant assessment year,

the assessee has paid `management charges' and `license fees' of Rs.18,32,12,834/-

to Lloyd's Register Asia UK i.e. its head office, which in turn has been given to

Lloyd's Register UK. The break-up of the management and license fees were as

under:


              Particulars                  Amount in Rs.
              Management Charges             4,42,92,396
              License Fees                  13,89,20,438
              Total                         18,32,12,834


6.       In response to the show cause notice by the AO as to why these expenses

should not be treated as Head office expenses u/s. 44C, the assessee filed detailed
                                          5
                                                          ITA No.387 & 517/Mum/2013

submissions, which has been incorporated at pages 2 to 6 of the assessment order.

The sum and substance of the assessee's submission was that, firstly, it is not a

transaction between the head office and the branch but between Lloyd's Register

UK and Lloyd's Register Asia (India Branch office). The payment is only routed

through the head office i.e. Lloyd's Register Asia UK. Lloyd's Register UK is filing

separate income tax return in India for the said income. These transactions have

also been verified by the Transfer Pricing Officer and held that it was at arm's length

and, therefore, provisions of section 44C do not arise. Secondly, the license fees

and management fees cannot be held to be covered with the definition of `head

office expenses' as defined in section 44C of the Act, as the said section is only

applicable to general and administration expenditure as referred to in Explanation

(iv) to section 44C, because the head office expenditure includes only executive and

general administration expenditure of the nature enumerated in clause (a) to (d).


7.    However, the learned AO rejected the assessee's contention and held that

what is relevant to see here is, who has incurred the expenses and who has

accounted for it as their expenses. In this case the expenses were incurred by

Lloyd's Register UK for various group companies, which were reimbursed through

Lloyd's Register Asia UK and these expenses are very much in the nature of head

office expenses for the purpose so far as assessee is concerned. Lloyd's Register

Asia UK i.e. head office is only the intermediary for the accounting purpose and it

will not change the real nature of expenses. After going through the management

service and license agreement, the learned AO held that both the payments are

covered within the definition of head office expenditure as defined under section
                                            6
                                                           ITA No.387 & 517/Mum/2013

44C. Thus he restricted the management and license fees to 5% of the adjusted

total income. The addition was made by the AO in the following manner:


     "Thus, Rs.18,32,12,834/- of Management and License Fees is restricted to 5%
     of the adjusted total income, which is Rs.35,65,954/- (i.e. 5% of total income
     of Rs.7,13,19,080/-) The difference of Rs.17,96,46,880/- is added to the total
     income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) initiated for
     furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. "


8.        In the first appeal, the learned CIT(A) after considering the elaborate

submissions made by the assessee, which has been discussed by him from para 4.7

to 4.10, held that so far as royalty or license fees is concerned, the same is not hit

by the definition of head office expenditure as provided in section 44C.

Accordingly, he directed the AO not to consider royalty or license fees expenditure

incurred by the assessee as head office expenditure.         Thus, the amount of Rs.

13,89,20,438/- was directed not to be considered for disallowance as per section

44C. Regarding management fees, he held that 50% of such expenditure is hit by

section 44C and the balance is not covered by Section 44C being the expenditure of

the branch office. For arriving at this conclusion, he has referred to the CIT(A)'s

order in the case of Lloyd's Register India Office, i.e. the holding company, for A.Y.

2005-06. Thus, half of the amount of management charges of Rs.4,42,92,396/-

was held to be covered u/s. 44C and the balance half as expenditure of branch

office.


9.        Before us, the learned senior counsel, Shri Soli Dastur, after explaining the

entire facts of the case submitted that here in this case, it needs to be seen,

whether the payment made by the Indian branch to Lloyd's Register Asia UK, which

in turn has been paid to Lloyd's Register UK, can be set to be hit by provisions of
                                          7
                                                          ITA No.387 & 517/Mum/2013

section 44C. The definition of "head office expenditure" envisages that such an

expenditure must have been incurred by the assessee outside India.          Here the

assessee Lloyd's Register Asia UK, has not incurred any such expenditure but has

only passed on to Lloyd's Register UK. This is evident from internal debit notes

placed at pages 58 and 59 of the paper-book.        The transaction is between two

different entities i.e. Lloyd's Register UK and Lloyd's Register Asia UK. The services

are rendered by Lloyd's Register UK and not by Lloyd's Register Asia UK therefore, it

cannot be held that expenses has been incurred by the assessee.            Whenever

income has been earned by Lloyd's Register UK in the form of license fees etc., the

same is being taxed in India. Hence, at the face of it, the provisions of section 44C

does not arise at all, as there is no transaction between the head office and the

branch. The second limb of the argument was that, the license fees at the face of it

do not fall within the definition of section 44C. The royalty has been paid by Lloyd's

Register Asia UK to Lloyd's Register UK and the branches of Lloyd's Register Asia UK

have been apportioned charges on proportionate basis through an internal debit

note and is reimbursed by the branch to the Lloyd's Register Asia UK. If one goes

by the definition in clause (iv) to section 44C, then such a payment of said license

fees/royalty does not fall within the ambit of head office expenditure. Hence, the

learned CIT(A) has rightly held that the license fees is not in the nature of head

office expenditure and was legally correct in directing the AO not to consider

`royalty' or `license fees' as expenditure incurred by the assessee as head office

expenditure. He drew our attention to Schedule 6, which provides the license fees

payable as per the agreement and also the recitals of the license agreement dated

16.07.2003 in support of his contentions. Thus, such a payment he submitted that,
                                          8
                                                          ITA No.387 & 517/Mum/2013

is definitely not covered u/s. 44C. Regarding management charges, he drew our

attention to the agreement dated 16.07.2003, which has been placed in the paper-

book from page 25 onwards and also the various types of services provided by

Lloyd's Register, which have been elaborated in Schedule 3 (appearing from pages

48 to 52 of the paper-book). He submitted that looking to the nature of services it

can be seen that these are very specialized services and does not fall in the

category of expenses as enumerated in Explanation to section 44C which are of

general and executive expenses. In support of his contention, he relied upon the

CBDT Circular No.202 dated 05.07.1976 as reported in (1976) 105 ITR (ST) 17.

Even otherwise also, he submitted that if the overall expenditure incurred by the

assessee is to be seen, then out of Rs.31,91,70,684, the management charges and

license fees is Rs.18,32,12,834/-, which is much more than half of the total

expenditure. Such a huge quantum of expenditure can never be held to be head

office expenditure as mentioned in section 44C, because Section 44C contemplates

expenditure to the tune of generally 5%. Definitely such an amount of expenditure

cannot be held to be of head office expenditure as contemplated in section 44C.


10.   By way of an alternative argument, Shri Dastur submitted that, it cannot be

disputed that the Indian branch being Permanent Establishment of Lloyd's Register

Asia UK, the business profits has to be determined under Article 7 of the India - UK

DTAA. Para 5 of the Article 7 clearly provides that in determination of the profits of

permanent establishment, expenses incurred for the purpose of business including

executive and general administrative expenses shall be allowed as deduction subject

to the limitation of domestic law of the contracting state in which the permanent

establishment is situated. However, para 7 of Article 7 provides that it will not apply
                                            9
                                                             ITA No.387 & 517/Mum/2013

in the case of reimbursement of actual expenses. Here in this case, it has not been

disputed that payment of license fees and management services are in the nature of

reimbursement. This is not only evident from the observations of the AO in the

case of the assessee but has also been held by the AO in the case of Lloyd's

Register UK in the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) for A.Y. 2005-06. A copy of

the said order has been filed separately at the time of hearing. Thus, by virtue of

Article 7(7), the restriction of Article 7(5) of limitation clause of the domestic law will

not apply and, therefore, no disallowance can be made under the DTAA.


11.    Lastly, again by way of an alternative argument, Shri Dastur submitted that

the provisions of section 44C will not apply in view of Article 26, which is a non

discrimination clause, as it discriminates the foreign residents. In support of this

proposition he relied upon the decision of Metchem Canada Inc. vs. DCIT (2006)

100 ITD 251, wherein it has been held that limitation on deduction of head office

expenditure as set out in section 44C would not apply in case of non-resident

companies in light of non-discrimination clause in DTAA, wherever such clause is

provided.


12.    On the other hand, the learned DR submitted that section 44C was brought

in the statute to overcome the difficulty to scrutinize and verify the claim of head

office expenses, particularly in the absence of account books of the head office

which are kept outside India. The said section was brought to curb the mischief of

the companies having branches in India to reduce the incidence of tax in India by

inflating their claims in respect of head office expenses. So far as the nature of

expenses like license fees and management charges is concerned, one has to see,

whether such expenditure are in the nature of head office expenditure or not. From
                                         10
                                                         ITA No.387 & 517/Mum/2013

the recitals of the license agreement, it can be seen that the licensor is providing

general, technical and marketing support services, which can be attributable as

head office expenditure.   Similarly, in the management services there are wide

range of activities carried out by the head office covering areas such as

administration, legal, accounting, human resources, information technology,

marketing, management and strategy, which in fact concerning head office

expenses. Thus, the AO has rightly considered these expenses in the nature of

head office expenditure.   So far as managerial services, she submitted that the

learned CIT(A) though has stated 50% of the expenditure to be in the nature of

head office expenditure but the balance 50% is definitely in the nature of fees for

technical service (FTS) and such an expenses has to be seen from the angle,

whether they are in the nature of FTS or not.       She further submitted that the

decision of Metchem Canada Inc.(supra) relied upon by the learned counsel has not

considered the true purport of section 44C and the mischief it sought to curb. Thus,

she strongly relied upon the order of the AO and submitted that the AO has rightly

considered these expenses u/s. 44C and in any case part of these payments will

definitely fall with the purview of head office expenses, which should be directed to

be considered by the AO.


13.   We have heard the rival submissions, perused the relevant findings given in

the impugned orders. The sole issue before us is, whether the payment of `license

fees' and `management services' for sums aggregating to Rs.18,32,12,834/- are in

the nature of `head office expenses' with the ambit of section 44C or not, so as to

make the disallowance under the said section.      The assessee here is an Indian

branch of UK based, Lloyd's Register Asia, which in turn is a subsidiary of a holding
                                          11
                                                          ITA No.387 & 517/Mum/2013

company, Lloyd's Register UK. The said companies are into business of survey and

inspection of the ships. Lloyd's Register UK had entered into license agreement

dated 16.07.2003 with various legal entities, which included Lloyd's Register Asia,

who have been referred to as licensees. The licensor (i.e. Lloyd's Register UK) owns

trademark and trade name and other business intangible, which has been referred

to as intellectual property rights. It also provides general, technical and market

support services to all the licensees. For the use of intellectual property rights and

the technical & marketing support services, license fees (which is royalty) is payable

by the licensee to the licensor, as per the details given in Schedule 6, which reads

as under:-


       "The amount of licensee fees chargeable to an individual licensee will be
       calculated on the residual profit split method according to the table as set out
       below. The residual profit percentages are the relevant profits before tax
       before charging the applicable licence fees ("PBT")

         PBT percentages                 Licence Fee

          a)   No PBT                    No charge
          b)   Up to 1%                  Amount of PBT
          c)   1 to 5%                   1% of net sales price of external sales
          d)   5 to7.5%                  The result in c) plus 50% of PBT over 5%
          e)   7.5% to 9%                The result in d) plus 2/3 of PBT over 7.5%
          f)   In excess of 9%           The result in e) plus 75% of PBT over 9%

The Lloyd's Register Asia has allocated the royalty attributable to its Indian branch

and the Indian branch pays the same to Lloyd's Register Asia, which in turn has

been paid to Lloyd's Register UK. Apart from this, management service agreement

dated 16.07.2003 between Lloyd's Register and Lloyd's Register Asia had been

entered into for providing host of specialized services under the following heads:-


   ·   Corporate communications
                                            12
                                                           ITA No.387 & 517/Mum/2013

      ·   Corporate finance and group reporting services
      ·   Group quality assurance
      ·   Human resources
      ·   Information technology
      ·   Integrated business system (IBS project)
      ·   Internal audit services
      ·   Legal services
      ·   Operational management and reporting (mainly provided by regional and
          area management centres)
      ·   Risk management and secretarial services and
      ·   Taxation and treasury services.

The determination of fees has been enumerated in Schedule 4 of the said

management services agreement.          Now in the light of these facts, we have to

examine, whether the aforesaid nature of expenses can be said to be in the nature

of head office expenditure within the ambit of section 44C. If such expenditures do

not fall within section 44C, then other limbs of the arguments as raised by the

earned Senior Counsel before us, will become purely academic.





14.       Section 44C, is a non obstante clause stating that "notwithstanding anything

to the contrary contained in sections 28 to 43A in the case of an assessee, being

non-resident, no allowance shall be made in computing the income chargeable

under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession", in respect of so much

of expenditure in the nature of head office expenditure as is in excess of the

amount computed as an amount equal to five percent of the adjusted total income ;

or the amount of so much of the expenditure in the nature of head office

expenditure incurred by the assessee as is attributable to the business or profession

of the assessee in India, whichever is less". The meaning of the term "head office
                                         13
                                                          ITA No.387 & 517/Mum/2013

expenditure" for the purpose of section 44C has been enumerated in clause (iv) of

Explanation to section 44C. The said clause reads as under:


      "iv)   "head   office   expenditure"    means    executive      and   general
      administration expenditure incurred by the assessee outside India,
      including expenditure incurred in respect of -

          (a) rent, rates, taxes, repairs or insurance of any premises outside
             India used for the purposes of the business or profession;
          (b) salary wages, annuity, pension, fees, bonus, commission, gratuity,
             perquisites or profits in lieu of or in addition to salary, whether
             paid or allowed to any employee or other person employed in, or
             managing the affairs of, any office outside India;
          (c) travelling by any employee or other person employed in, or
             managing the affairs of, any office outside India; and
          (d) such other matters connected with executive and general
             administration as may be prescribed.

From the aforesaid definition/illustration of the scope of head office expenditure, it

is evident that it is in the nature of executive and general administration

expenditure incurred by the assessee outside India. The nature of such expenditure

has been illustrated to include certain kinds of expenditure. From the nature of

expenditure as enumerated in sub clause (a) to sub clause (c) of the aforesaid

Explanation and if compared with the nature of expenditure incurred by the

assessee branch, then it will be seen that none of the expenditure under the head

"license fees" falls within this category, even remotely. The payment of `license fee'

is purely for using of brand/trademark and other business intangibles, which are in

the nature of intellectual property. Nowhere such types of expenditure fall within

the scope of "head office expenditure" as illustrated in clause (iv).        So far as
                                            14
                                                              ITA No.387 & 517/Mum/2013

general, technical and marketing support services are concerned, they are in the

following nature:


-     Provision of sales and marketing materials including brochures and product
      factsheet.
-     Provision of market research data and analysis
-     Provision of training and standards for use by operations and their clients in
      training surveyors, inspectors and assessors
-     Technical support and advice on the technology documents including
      product updates and the marketing and sale thereof
-     Specialised technical services such as Ship Emergency Response procedures,
      Condition Assessment Programme procedures and Fuel and Lubricant
      Analysis procedures
-     Co-ordination function for marketing and sales activities in relation to major
      contract opportunities and/or quotations for specialized industrial sectors
-     Sales support in respect of global customer accounts.

These again are neither in the nature of rent, rates, taxes, repairs, insurance,

salary, wages, bonus, commission, etc., or travelling by any employee. Expenditure

under the "License fee" have nothing to do with these kind and nature of

expenditures. Thus, the entire payment of license fees do not fall within the ambit

of section 44C as illustrated in clauses (a) to (c) of the Explanation and, therefore,

the learned CIT(A) has rightly held that royalty or license fees expenditure cannot

be treated as head office expenditure.


15.      Now coming to the nature of head office expenditure under clause (d) of the

Explanation i.e. "such other matters connected with executive and general

administration as may be prescribed". Such an exercise for illustrating the said

expenditure under the said sub clause has to be prescribed by the CBDT. However,

no such illustration has been given or prescribed by the Board, atleast nothing has
                                           15
                                                            ITA No.387 & 517/Mum/2013

been brought before us that CBDT has issued any Circular or clarification illustrating

"such other matters connected with executive and general administration".

Therefore, it cannot be held that the nature of expenses under the head license fees

falls even under sub clause (d).


16.    Now coming to the "management charges", it can be noticed from the nature

of expenses as elaborated in Schedule 3 of management services agreement dated

16.07.2003, prima facie they are specialized services under various heads as

enumerated above in para 13. None of these services are in the nature of head

office expenditure as illustrated in sub clause (a) to (d).         For computing the

deduction of head office expenditure, it is sine-qua-non that the nature of head

office expenses must fall within the illustration given in clause (iv) of Explanation. If

any expenditure itself is beyond the scope of head office expenditure, then needless

to say that, it cannot be brought within ambit of section 44C. The learned CIT(A)

has held that the 50% of management fees is hit by section 44C, without even

analyzing the nature of expenses, as how or how much they fall within the scope

and ambit of nature of head office expenditure as defined in Section 44C. In the

appellate order of Lloyd's Register India office, which has been followed by the

learned CIT(A), it is seen that 50% of the management charges has been treated as

taxable fees for technical services and balance 50% as head office expenses.

However, the learned CIT(A) in the impugned case of the assessee has merely

stated that 50% of the management fees is hit by section 44C, whereas for the

balance he has not held that it is in the nature of FTS and here it is not the case of

the AO. Even in the revenue's grounds of appeal, it has not been challenged that

50% of the management charges/license fees are in the nature of FTS. Thus, we
                                         16
                                                         ITA No.387 & 517/Mum/2013

need not go on the issue of FTS as neither it is a case of the AO nor the case of the

CIT(A). Otherwise also, the technical fees are not covered under the head office

either executive or general administration expenditure as specified in section 44C.

This aspect of the matter has been clarified vide Board Circular no.649 dated

31.03.1993, reported in (1993) 200 ITR (ST) 230. Lastly, fees for technical services

in the case of a non-resident companies has to be seen in accordance with the

DTAA read with I T Act, which here in this case need not be gone into as it is not

the case of the revenue.


17.   Thus, in our conclusion, neither the payment of "license fees" nor the

"management charges", falls within the ambit and purview of section 44C and,

accordingly, the nature of adjustment to the total income for the purpose of

disallowance is not required.


18.   As regards the other arguments of the learned senior counsel Shri Dastur,

that these expenditure are in the nature of reimbursement and hence in view of

Article 7 read with para 5 & 7, no disallowance of head office expenditure in the

present case can be made, though prima facie, we agree with the contention of

Shri Dastur, however, in view of our finding given above, this plea has become

purely academic. All the other arguments as raised by the learned senior counsel

have also become purely academic and are left open.


19.   Accordingly, in view of our finding given above, we hold that "license fees"

and "management charges" do not fall in the nature of head office expenses u/s.

44C and accordingly, the disallowance made by the AO and partly confirmed by the
                                            17
                                                           ITA No.387 & 517/Mum/2013

 CIT(A) stands deleted. As a consequence, the assessee's grounds are treated as

 allowed and the revenue's grounds are dismissed.


 20.     In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed and the revenue's appeal is

 dismissed.


         Order pronounced in the open court on this day of 10th June 2015.


                   Sd/-                                             Sd/-
         (D Karunakara Rao)                                   (Amit Shukla)
      ACCOUNTANT MEMBER                                    JUDICIAL MEMBER
 Mumbai; Dated : 10th June, 2015.

 SA



 Copy of the Order forwarded to :

1.     The   Appellant.
2.     The   Respondent.
3.     The   CIT(A), Mumbai.
4.     The   CIT
5.     The   DR, `L' Bench, ITAT, Mumbai

                                                         BY ORDER,

         //True Copy//

                                                  (Dy./Asstt. Registrar)
                                           Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - Our Mission

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions