SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(SC) 109

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPAK MISRA, SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.
GVK Industries Ltd. & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
The Income Tax Officer & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7796 of 1997
Decided on: 18-02-2015

IMPORTANT POINT
Fee for consultancy services are taxable.

Headnote:(a) Income-tax Act, 1961 – Section 9(1) (vii)(b) – Parliament competent to make laws “for the whole or any part of the territory of India” – Such laws may not be invalidated on the ground that they may require extra-territorial operation – Section 9(1) (vii)(b) held constitutionally valid. (Para 17)

       (1990) 183 ITR 43 (SC); (1989) Supp. 2 SCC 642; (2011) 4 SCC 36 – Relied upon

       W.P. No. 105/1987 – Cited with approval

       (b) Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 9(1)(i) – Payment or receipt of success fee – Paid by the appellant to NRC – Transaction of success fee not having any business connection – Would not be taxable under Section 9(1)(i). (Para 19)

       (c) Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 9(1)(vii), Explanation (2) – Expression “fee for technical service” – Services provided by NRC – Covered by ‘consultancy service’ – Taxable u/s 9(1)(vii) – Issue of No Objection Certificate without payment of tax – Not permissible. (Para 33, 37)

       (2009) 319 ITR 139 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

       With the intention to utilize the expert services of qualified and experienced professionals who could prepare a scheme for raising the required finance and tie up the required loan, GVK Industries Ltd. sought services of a consultant and eventually entered into an agreement with ABB – Projects & Trade Finance International Ltd., Zurich, Switzerland. The NRC, having regard to the requirements of the appellant-company offered its services as financial advisor to its project from July 08, 1993.

       For its services the NRC was to be paid, what is termed as, “success fee” at the rate of 0.75% of the total debt financing. With advice of NRC the appellant-company approached the Indian Financial Institutions with the Industrial Development Bank of India (IDBI) acting as the Lead Financier for its Rupee loan requirement and for a part of its foreign currency loan requirement it approached International Finance Corporation (IFC), Washington DC, USA. After successful rendering of services the NRC sent invoice to the appellant-company for payment of success fee amount i.e., US $.17,15,476.16 (Rs.5.4 Crores).

       After the receipt of the said invoice the appellant-company approached the concerned income tax officer, the first respondent herein, for issuing a ‘No Objection Certificate’ to remit the said sum duly pointing out that the NRC had no place of business in India; that all the services rendered by it were from outside India; and that no part of success fee could be said to arise or accrue or deemed to arise or accrue in India attracting the liability under the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the NRC.

       The first respondent scanning the application filed by the company refused to issue ‘No Objection Certificate’ by his order dated September 27, 1994.

       The appellant-company preferred a revision petition before the commissioner of Income-tax, Hyderabad, the second respondent herein who permitted the appellant-company to remit the said sum to the NRC by furnishing a bank guarantee for the amount of tax. The company took steps to comply with the said order but afterwards on October 25, 1995 the revisional authority revoked the earlier order and directed the company to deduct tax and pay the same to the credit of the Central Government as a condition precedent for issuance of the ‘No Objection Certificate’. Thus, the order passed by the first respondent was affirmed and resultantly the revision petition was dismissed.

       The company approached the High Court for quashing of the orders passed by the Income-tax officer and that of by the revisional authority.

       High Court rejected all the contentions advanced by the assessee-company and dismissed the writ petition.

       Finding of the Court:

       There is no infirmity in impugned judgment.

       Result: Appeal dismissed.

       

Judgment

Dipak Misra, J.

The appellant No. 1 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 for the purpose of setting up a 235 MW Gas based power project at Jegurupadu, Rajahmundry, Andhra Pradesh at an estimated cost of Rs.839 crores and the appellant No. 2 is a director of the company. The main object of the appellant company is to generate and sell electricity.

2. With the intention to utilize the expert services of qualified and experienced professionals who could prepare a scheme for raising the required finance and tie up the required loan, it sought services of a consultant and eventually entered into an agreement with ABB – Projects & Trade Finance International Ltd., Zurich, Switzerland, (hereinafter referred to as “Non-Resident Company/NRC”). The NRC, having regard to the requirements of the appellant-company offered its services as financial advisor to its project from July 08, 1993. Those services included, inter alia, financial structure and security package to be offered to the lender, making an assessment of export credit agencies world-wide and obtaining commercial bank support on the most competitive terms, assisting the appellant loan negotiations and documentation with lenders and structuring, negotiating and closing the financing for the project in a coordinated and expeditious manner. For its services the NRC was to be paid, what is termed as, “success fee” at the rate of 0.75% of the total debt financing. The said proposal was placed before the Board meeting of the company on August 21, 1993 and the Board of Directors approved the appointment of the NRC and advised that it be involved in the proposed public issue of share by the company. The NRC rendered professional services from Zurich by correspondence as to how to execute the documents for sanction of loan by the financial institutions within and outside the country. With advice of NRC the appellant-company approached the Indian Financial Institutions with the Industrial Development Bank of India (IDBI) acting as the Lead Financier for its Rupee loan requirement and for a part of its foreign currency loan requirement it approached International Finance Corporation (IFC), Washington DC, USA. After successful rendering of services the NRC sent invoice to the appellant-company for payment of success fee amount i.e., US $.17,15,476.16 (Rs.5.4 Crores).

3. As the facts would unfurl after the receipt of the said invoice the appellant-company approached the concerned income tax officer, the first respondent herein, for issuing a ‘No Objection Certificate’ to remit the said sum duly pointing out that the NRC had no place of business in India; that all the services rendered by it were from outside India; and that no part of success fee could be said to arise or accrue or deemed to arise or accrue in India attracting the liability under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) by the NRC. It was also stated as the NRC had no business connection Section 9(1)(i) is not attracted and further as NRC had rendered no technical services Section 9(1)(vii) is also no attracted. The first respondent scanning the application filed by the company refused to issue ‘No Objection Certificate’ by his order dated September 27, 1994. Being dissatisfied with the said order passed by the first respondent the appellant-company preferred a revision petition before the commissioner of Income-tax, Hyderabad, the second respondent herein, under Section 264 of the Act. On March 21, 1995 the second respondent permitted the appellant-company to remit the said sum to the NRC by furnishing a bank guarantee for the amount of tax. The company took steps to comply with the said order but afterwards on October 25, 1995 the revisional authority revoked the earlier order and directed the company to deduct tax and pay the same to the credit of the Central Government as a condition precedent for issuance of the ‘No Objection Certificate’. Thus, the order passed by the first respondent























































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top