Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
N. Kumar and Ravi Malimath, JJ.
Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation —Appellant
Vs.
Bovis Lend Lease (India) (P.) Ltd. —Respondent
Income Tax Appeal Nos. 15 to 22 of 2010 and IT Appeal Crob. Nos. 2 to 9 of 2011
Decided on : 16-03-2012
Tax Deduction at Source - Management Services Agreement - Section 195, Section 197 - The court held that the payer is not required to deduct tax at source if the certificate under Section 197(1) is in force and not cancelled. The payer cannot be treated as an assessee in default and cannot be proceeded with. The certificate is tentative, provisional, or interim in nature and does not preclude the Assessing Officer from re-examining the chargeability of income in regular assessment proceedings or recovering taxes from the payer in his representative capacity.
Fact of the Case:
The assessee, a Private Limited Company, entered into a management services agreement with a Singapore company. The assessee made payments to the Singapore company without deducting tax at source. The assessing authority issued a notice under Section 201, calling upon the assessee to show cause as to why he should not be treated as an assessee in default under Section 201(1) and why interest should not be levied under Section 201(1A). The assessee contended that the payments were reimbursement of actual expenses and obtained a certificate under Section 197(1) from the assessing officer.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that as long as the certificate under Section 197(1) is in force and not cancelled, the payer is not required to deduct tax at source. The payer cannot be treated as an assessee in default and cannot be proceeded with. The certificate is tentative, provisional, or interim in nature and does not preclude the Assessing Officer from re-examining the chargeability of income in regular assessment proceedings or recovering taxes from the payer in his representative capacity.
Issues: The main issue was whether the assessee was required to deduct tax at source under Section 195 of the Act for the payments made to the Singapore company.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that if the certificate under Section 197(1) is in force and not cancelled, the payer is not required to deduct tax at source. The payer cannot be treated as an assessee in default and cannot be proceeded with. The certificate is tentative, provisional, or interim in nature and does not preclude the Assessing Officer from re-examining the chargeability of income in regular assessment proceedings or recovering taxes from the payer in his representative capacity.
Final Decision: The court dismissed all the appeals and cross objections, holding that the payer is not required to deduct tax at source if the certificate under Section 197(1) is in force and not cancelled. The payer cannot be treated as an assessee in default and cannot be proceeded with. The certificate is tentative, provisional, or interim in nature and does not preclude the Assessing Officer from re-examining the chargeability of income in regular assessment proceedings or recovering taxes from the payer in his representative capacity.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The main legal principle established is that if a certificate under Section 197(1) of the Income Tax Act is in force and not canceled, the payer is not required to deduct tax at source. This means the payer cannot be treated as an assessee in default and cannot be proceeded against for non-deduction (!) (!) .
The certificate issued under Section 197(1) is provisional, interim, or tentative in nature. It does not prevent the Assessing Officer from re-examining the chargeability of the income during regular assessment proceedings or from recovering taxes from the payer in a representative capacity (!) (!) .
When a certificate under Section 197(1) is issued and remains in force, the payer is under no obligation to deduct tax at source, and the proceedings initiated for default are unsustainable and illegal (!) (!) .
The case involved payments made under a management services agreement, which the authorities initially classified as fees for technical services (FTS). However, the courts emphasized that if the consideration is for reimbursement of actual expenses, it does not constitute income and thus does not attract tax deduction obligations (!) (!) (!) .
The authorities and courts recognized that the nature of the transaction, as supported by the agreement and the representation of the parties, was reimbursement of expenses, which is not subject to withholding tax under Section 195 if a valid certificate under Section 197(1) exists (!) (!) (!) .
The authorities below and the Tribunal held that the certificates issued under Section 197(1) are valid and that the assessee acted on the basis of these certificates, which exempted them from deducting tax at source. Therefore, the assessee could not be deemed as an assessee in default (!) (!) .
The authorities also examined whether the consideration involved "make available" of expertise, skill, or know-how, which could involve technical or managerial services liable to tax. The courts clarified that if the payment is merely reimbursement, such considerations do not apply (!) (!) .
The courts confirmed that the certificates issued under Section 197(1) are provisional and do not preclude the authorities from re-assessing the chargeability of income in subsequent proceedings. They serve as a protection against proceedings for non-deduction but do not bar re-examination of the underlying tax liability (!) (!) .
The courts dismissed the appeals and cross objections, emphasizing that the primary factor is the nature of the payment—whether it is reimbursement or income—and that the certificates under Section 197(1) provide temporary immunity from deduction obligations, which can be revisited in regular assessments (!) (!) .
The authorities' and courts' interpretation of the terms in the agreement, the concept of "make available," and the applicability of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) were also discussed, but the courts clarified that if the consideration is for reimbursement, the question of technical services or DTAA overriding the Act does not arise (!) (!) .
In summary, the key legal points revolve around the nature and effect of certificates under Section 197(1), the distinction between reimbursement and income, and the circumstances under which tax deduction at source is required or exempted.
N. Kumar , J.—These appeals and cross objections ate between the same parties and the questions involved are one and the same. Hence, they are taken up for consideration together and disposed off by this common order. The assessee is a Private Limited Company carrying on the business of project and construction management. On 1.7.2001, the assessee entered into a management services agreement (herein after referred to as "MSA" for short) with M/ S Lend Lease Asia Holdings Private Limited, Singapore (herein after referred to as "LLAH"). The purpose of the agreement was to get the benefit of LLAH's or its associates' expertise and experience in management service, administrative services, personnel services, legal services, financial services, marketing services, business operational services, information technology services based on knowledge and expertise gained by the LLAH or its associates during its operations of similar business world-wide. In accordance with the terms of the MSA agreement, the LLAH was to provide services like administration, personnel, legal, finance and accounting information, marketing support, insurance matters, treasury management and information technology to the assessee. As per Article 3 of the MSA, the LLAH after providing the services shall submit a statement of service charges to the assessee and the claim has to be settled within 30 days from the time the invoice is tendered. Accordingly, the LLAH, after providing the services, has raised invoices and submitted them to the assessee. The claim has been admitted and accordingly, amounts were debited as expenditure for the relevant financial years under the head 'Regional Overhead Charges Account' and corresponding amounts were credited to the 'Outstanding Expenses Account'. The debit entries have reduced the income of the assessee for the relevant assessment years. After making such credit entries, no tax at the rate in force was deducted by the assessee under Section 195 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short).
2. The LLAH filed applications to the assessing officer in terms of the provisions of Section 197 of the Act. Along with the said application he also furnished copies of the invoices raised by them for payment by the assessee. The assessing authority has issued certificates authorizing the payment without deduction of tax. It is not in dispute that after the issuance of the said certificate the assessee made payments as against each invoices without any deductions.
3. The Authority issued a notice under Section 201 calling upon the assessee to show cause as to why he should not be treated, as an assessee in default under Section 201 (1) and also why interest should not be levied under Section 201 (1A) as the assessee has not deducted tax as required under Section 195(1) of the Act at the time of making a credit entry. On receipt of the notice, the assessee submitted its reply. In substance, the defence of the assessee was that the credit to the outstanding expanses account is not to be regarded as credit to the account of the non-resident as the income has not accrued or crystallized. No tax can be charged under Sections 4 and 5 and no tax can be deducted under Section 195 unless income accrues and that happen only when it becomes due and payable. The mere passing of the accounting entry is no evidence of any amount becoming due and payable to a non-resident. The Explanation to Section 195 (1) is not applicable as there is no intention to escape tax deduction by crediting the income to some other account. The credit of the sums payable to LLAH was made after obtaining the certificate for non-deduction of tax. The assessing authority on consideration of all the relevant material held that the intention of the assessee was to get the benefit of LLAH or its associates' expertise and experience in management services, administrative service etc., and the intention of LLAH was to provide such ser
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
