ACIT, Hyderabad V. Louis Berger International inc., Hyderabad

ITA 1073/HYD/2004

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3144 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 7 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 12-05-2010
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 11-11-2004
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VASUNDHARA SINHA
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAMA RAO
• Keywords: Double taxation relief; Diversion of income; Permanent establishment; Advance ruling; Capital receipt; TDS
• Section: 234B; 195

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B , HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AKBER BASHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NO.1073/HYD/2004 - A.Y. 2000-2001 ITA.NO.1074/HYD/2004 - A.Y. 2001-2002 ITA.NO.720/HYD/2005 - A.Y. 2002-2003 ITA.NO.721/HYD/2005 - A.Y. 2003-2004 ACIT, CIRCLE 2(2), HYDERABAD VS M/S LOUIS BERGER INTERNATIONAL INC., HYDERABAD (PAN AAACL4067F) APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA. NO.820/HYD/2005 - A.Y. 1998-99 ITA. NO.821/HYD/2005 - A.Y. 1999-2000 ACIT, CIRCLE 16(1), HYDERABAD VS M/S LOUIS BERGER INTERNATIONAL INC., HYDERABAD (PAN AAACL4067F) APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA.NO.1217/HYD/2006 - A.Y. 1998-99 ITA.NO.1218/HYD/2006 - A.Y. 2000-01 DCIT, CIRCLE 16(1), HYDERABAD VS M/S LOUIS BERGER INTERNATIONAL INC., HYDERABAD (PAN AAACL4067F) APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SMT. VASUNDHARA SINHA, DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S. RAMA RAO O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JM: ALL THESE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAI NST THE INDEPENDENT ORDERS OF THE CIT(A)-III, HYDERABAD A ND PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-01, 2 001-02, 2002-03. SINCE COMMON ISSUES ARISE FOR CONSIDERATIO N IN ALL THESE APPEALS, WE HAVE HEARD THE SAME TOGETHER AND DISPOS ING OFF THE SAME BY THIS COMMON ORDER. M/S LOUIS BERGER INTERNATIONAL INC. ========================= 2 2. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTE D THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AS SESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED RS.8,55,58,000/- TOWARDS EXPENDITURE CLA IMED AS REIMBURSABLE. ACCORDING TO LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL RE PRESENTATIVE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO DISALLOWED A SUM OF RS.1 6,69,069/- UNDER THE ARTICLE 12 OF DOUBLE TAXATION AVOIDANCE A GREEMENT BETWEEN GOVT. OF INDIA AND USA. REFERRING TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA , THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE POINTED OUT THAT THE AGREEMENT HAS TWO PARTS. THE FIRST PART CONTAINS G ENERAL CLAUSES AND THE SECOND PART CONTAINS SPECIAL CLAUSES. IN T HE AGREEMENT, THERE WAS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REIMBURSABLE EXPEND ITURE AND THE FEE PAYABLE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES. REFERRING TO S EC.9(1)(VII) OF THE IT ACT, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUB MITTED THAT ALL TYPES OF PAYMENT CONSTITUTE FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERV ICES, THEREFORE NO DEDUCTION OF ANY EXPENSES WOULD BE ALLOWED IN CA SE THE ASSESSEE RECEIVES ANY AMOUNT IN THE GUISE OF REIMBU RSEMENT OF EXPENDITURE. THEREFORE, THE ENTIRE AMOUNT PAYABLE INCLUDING REIMBURSABLE EXPENDITURE HAS TO BE TAKEN AS A WHOLE TOWARDS FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICE, UNDER ARTICLE 12 OF THE DOUB LE TAXATION AVOIDANCE AGREEMENT WITH USA. THE LEARNED DEPARTME NTAL REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT FOR THE PUR POSE OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 10(6A), THE ASSESSEE HAS TO GET THE A PPROVAL OF THE GOVT. OF INDIA. IN THIS CASE, ACCORDING TO THE LEA RNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, NO APPROVAL WAS OBTAINED IN RESPECT OF AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA. ACCORDING TO LEARNED DEPARTMEN TAL REPRESENTATIVE, THE REIMBURSABLE EXPENDITURE CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT ENT ITLED FOR EXEMPTION U/S 10(6A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. R EFERRING TO CIT(A) ORDER, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATI VE SUBMITTED THAT TAX WAS DEDUCTED TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2,11,63,4 25/- INCLUDING THE REIMBURSABLE EXPENDITURE. THOUGH ORIGINALLY, T HE ASSESSEE CLAIMED ALL THE TDS CERTIFICATES IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01. SUBSEQUENTLY, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS FO LLOWING THE M/S LOUIS BERGER INTERNATIONAL INC. ========================= 3 MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AND THE TDS HAS TO BE GIVEN CREDIT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF RS.211,63,426/- INSTEAD OF RS.279,80,493/-. REFERR ING TO PAGE 15 OF THE CIT(A) ORDER, MORE PARTICULARLY PARA 19.2, T HE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE POINTED OUT THAT THE CI T(A) FOLLOWED THE JUDGEMENT OF THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF CIT VS. SANDERSON & MORGANS 75 ITR 433, BOMBAY HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. TANUBAI D. DESAI 84 ITR 713. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, THE CASE BEFOR E THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT AND BOMBAY HIGH COURT ARE ENTIRELY DIFFE RENT, THEREFORE THESE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT AND BOMBAY HIGH COURT JUD GEMENT MAY NOT BE APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. ACCOR DING TO THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE, NO CASE WAS MADE OUT BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED ON BE HALF OF NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA. ACCORDING TO LEARNED R EPRESENTATIVE, ARTICLE 12 OF DOUBLE TAXATION AVOIDANCE AGREEMENT, BETWEEN USA AND INDIA CLEARLY SAYS THAT ANY PAYMENT FOR RENDERI NG THE SERVICES WOULD AMOUNTS TO PAYMENT FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES. T HEREFORE, THE CIT(A) IS NOT CORRECT IN SAYING THAT SEC.44D AND SE C.115A(3) ARE APPLICABLE ONLY TO THE INCOME AND NOT TO REIMBURSAB LE EXPENDITURE. ACCORDING TO LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE, EVEN THE REIMBURSABLE EXPENDITURE FORM PART OF THE FEE FOR T ECHNICAL SERVICES, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ANY EX CLUSION OF THE SAME WHILE COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME. 3. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO DISALLOWED A SUM OF RS.62,27,887/- TOWARDS SERVICE TAX REIMBURSED. ACCORDING TO LEARN ED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SERVICE TAX IS LIABILI TY OF THE SERVICE PROVIDER. SERVICE PROVIDER MAY EVENTUALLY PASS OVE R THE SAME TO THE OTHER PERSON. HOWEVER, THE LIABILITY REMAINS T HAT OF THE SERVICE PROVIDER FOR PAYMENT OF SERVICE TAX. THE L EARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CHOWRINGHEE SALES BUREAU (P) LTD. VS. CIT, 110 ITR 385, APEX COURT IN THE C ASE OF SINCLAIR M/S LOUIS BERGER INTERNATIONAL INC. ========================= 4 MURRAY & CO. P. LTD. VS. CIT, 97 ITR 615. REFERRING TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE REIMBURSABLE EXPE NDITURES ARE TO BE TAXED. THEREFORE, THE TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE ARE BORNE BY THE CLIENTS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PART OF THE TECHNIC AL SERVICES. THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE TAX PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE BORNE BY THE RESP ECTIVE CLIENTS, IT HAS TO BE TREATED AS PART OF THE FEE PAYABLE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES. THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE PLACED RELIAN CE ON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF CIT VS . SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, UPPER SILERU, 152 ITR 753. FURTHER, SUBMITTED THAT THE JUDGEMENT OF THE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT WAS APPROVED BY THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF TRANS MISSION CORPORATION OF AP LTD. & OTHERS VS. CIT, 239 ITR 58 7. THE JUDGEMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT FURTHER FOLLOWED BY THE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ASIAN DEVELOPMENT SERVICE VS. CIT, 239 ITR 713. REFERRING TO THE CIT(A) ORDER, MORE PARTICULARLY, P ARA 24, THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE POINTED OUT THAT THE INDUSTRIAL POLICY NOTIFIED BY THE GOVT. OF INDIA DATED 24.7.19 91 WAS PRODUCED FIRST TIME BEFORE THE CIT(A). ACCORDING TO THE LEA RNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, THE INDUSTRIAL POLICY WAS NOTIFIED ON 24.7.1991 THEREFORE IT WAS OUT DATED AND IT IS NOT RELEVANT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE PORTION O F THE INDUSTRIAL POLICY REPRODUCED BY THE CIT(A) CANNOT B E A BASIS FOR HOLDING THAT THE GOVERNMENT APPROVAL WAS OBTAINED A S REQUIRED U/S 10(6A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. FURTHER, T HE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE POINTED OUT THAT REFERENCE TO SEC.80 IA (4) BY CIT(A) IS NOT RELEVANT IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE. T HEREFORE, ACCORDING TO LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE, THE ASSESSEE I S NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 10(6A) OF THE ACT. REFERRING FEATURE S FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES, THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE POINTED OUT TH AT PAYMENT OF ANY KIND HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES, THEREFORE THERE IS NOT NEED FOR EXAMINING THE NATUR E OF THE PAYMENT. REFERRING TO PAYMENT MADE TO SUB CONTRACT OR, THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE POINTED OUT THAT THE LIABILI TY OF THE ASSESSEE M/S LOUIS BERGER INTERNATIONAL INC. ========================= 5 TO EXECUTE THE WORK CANNOT BE DILUTED BY RAISING BI LL THROUGH SUB CONTRACTORS. THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE PLACED REL IANCE ON THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF PROGRESSIV E CONSTRUCTIONS VS. JCIT IN ITA.NO.482/HYD/2001 DATED 23.11.2006 AN D SUBMITTED THAT BY ASSIGNING THE WORK TO THE SUB CONTRACTOR, T HERE IS NO DIVERSION OF INCOME BY OVERRIDING TITLE. ACCORDING TO LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE, AT THE BEST THE PAYMENT MADE TO THE SUB CONTRACTOR MAY CONSTITUTE AN EXPENDITURE IN THE HAN DS OF THE ASSESSEE AS FOUND BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF P ROGRESSIVE CONSTRUCTION (SUPRA). 4. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI RAMA RAO, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS A N ON RESIDENT COMPANY INCORPORATED IN THE USA. THE ASSESSEE COMP ANY ENGAGED IN PROVIDING TECHNICAL SERVICES TO GOVT. OF INDIA AND THE OTHER GOVT. ORGANIZATIONS FOR DEVELOPING INFRASTRUC TURE FACILITIES. MOST OF THE AGREEMENTS ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE WERE WITH NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, STATE GOVT. DE PARTMENTS. THE ASSESSEE HAS TO PROVIDE TECHNICAL SERVICES TO T HE GOVT. AGENCIES. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, IN THE COURSE OF ITS BUSINESS ACTIVITY IN INDIA, THE A SSESSEE HAS TO INCUR EXPENDITURE ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND OTHER GOVT. DEPARTMENTS WHICH ENGAGE THE SERVICES OF THE ASSESSEE. THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSE SSEE WOULD BE REIMBURSED IN TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THERE IS A MAXIMUM LI MIT FOR SUCH EXPENDITURE TO BE REIMBURSED BY THE NATIONAL HIGHWA Y AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND OTHER DEPARTMENTS OF GOVT. 5. ACCORDING TO LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, T HE ASSESSEE BEING A NON RESIDENT FOREIGN COMPANY, ASSESSABLE EI THER UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 OR IN ACCORD ANCE WITH DOUBLE TAXATION AVOIDANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GO VT. OF INDIA AND THE USA. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, TH E ASSESSEE CLAIMED REIMBURSABLE EXPENDITURE AS NOT TAXABLE, SI NCE THE SAME M/S LOUIS BERGER INTERNATIONAL INC. ========================= 6 DOES NOT REPRESENT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ACC ORDING TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE REIMBURSABLE EXPENDITURE IS ONLY TO REIMBURSE THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON BEHAL F OF THE CLIENTS, THEREFORE, IT IS A CAPITAL RECEIPT. HOWEV ER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REFERRING TO ARTICLE 12 OF DOUBLE TAXATION AVOIDANCE AGREEMENT FOUND THAT ANY SOME RECEIVED BY THE ASSES SEE WOULD CONSTITUTE PAYMENT FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES. ACCORDIN GLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSED THE ENTIRE GROSS AMOUNT INCLUDING THE REIMBURSABLE EXPENDITURE AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSES SEE AND ESTIMATED THE PROFIT AT 15% ON SUCH RECEIPT. HOWEV ER, FOR THE PURPOSE OF RATE OF TAX, THE ASSESSING OFFICER APPLI ED ARTICLE 7 OF THE DOUBLE TAXATION AVOIDANCE AGREEMENT AND LEVIED TAX AT 20%. REFERRING TO REIMBURSABLE EXPENDITURE, THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENDITURE BY THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND OTHER DEPARTMENTS CA NNOT PARTAKE THE CHARACTER OF INCOME. THEREFORE, SUCH REIMBURSE MENT OF EXPENDITURE HAS TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE FEE PAYABLE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES. ACCORDING TO LEARNED COUNSEL, REIMBURSEM ENT OF EXPENDITURE IS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FROM THE FEE PAYA BLE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES. THE AMOUNT WILL BE REIMBURSED BY THE GOV ERNMENT OR GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT WHEN THE EXPENDITURE WAS ACTU ALLY INCURRED ON THEIR BEHALF. IN SUCH AN EVENT, THE AS SESSEE SPENDS THE AMOUNT ON BEHALF OF THE GOVT. OR ITS DEPARTMENT . THEREFORE, THE SAID EXPENDITURE IS ONLY PAID BY THE GOVT. BY W AY OF REIMBURSEMENT. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITT ED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO INCURRED EXPENDITURE ON ITS OWN I N THE COURSE OF ITS BUSINESS ACTIVITY AND AS SUCH EXPENDITURE WAS N OT CLAIMED AS REIMBURSABLE EXPENDITURE. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMING TH E EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON BEHALF OF ITS CLIENTS ALONE AS REIMBURS ABLE EXPENDITURE. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL, THE EXPENDITURE I NCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON BEHALF OF GOVT. IS A DEBT DUE FROM THE GOVERNMENT. THEREFORE, IT WOULD AMOUNT TO CAPITAL RECEIPT IN TH E HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS NOT TAXABLE. M/S LOUIS BERGER INTERNATIONAL INC. ========================= 7 6. REFERRING TO SEC.9(1)(VII) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 AND SEC.115A, THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE AM OUNT RECEIVED TOWARDS FEE FOR RENDERING TECHNICAL SERVICES ARE GO VERNED BY SEC.9(1)(VII) AND SEC.115A. REFERRING TO EXPLANATI ON TO SEC.9(1)(VII), THE LEARNED COUNSEL POINTED OUT THAT THE LEGISLATURE EMPLOYED THE WORD FOR RENDERING ANY MANAGERIAL, TE CHNICAL OR CONSULTANCY SERVICES' FOR RELEVANT CONSIDERATION. EXPLANATION TO SEC. 9(1)(VII) DOES NOT SAY THAT ANY AMOUNT RECEIVE D WHICH IS NOT FOR RENDERING ANY SERVICE ALSO WOULD FORM PART OF F EE FOR SERVICES. IN VIEW OF EXPLANATION SEC.9(1)(VII), ACCORDING TO THE LEAR NED COUNSEL, THE REIMBURSABLE EXPENDITURE ARE NOT INCLU DED IN THE DEFINITION FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES IN SEC.9(1)(V II) OF THE ACT. REFERRING TO ARTICLE 12(4) OF THE DOUBLE TAXATION A VOIDANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN GOVT. OF INDIA AND USA, THE LEARN ED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT ANY AMOUNT OTHER THAN THE AMOUNT REC EIVED AS CONSIDERATION FOR SERVICES RENDERED CANNOT FORM PAR T OF FEE TECHNICAL SERVICE. THEREFORE, THE REIMBURSABLE EXP ENDITURE CANNOT CONSTITUTE FEE PAID/PAYABLE FOR THE SERVICES RENDER ED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE RE IMBURSABLE EXPENDITURE BY THE GOVERNMENT OR ITS DEPARTMENT CAN NOT BE TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. REFERRING TO SE C.44D OF THE ACT, THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THIS SECTIO N IS APPLICABLE IN RESPECT OF ANY SUM RECEIVED TOWARDS TECHNICAL SERVI CES AND IT IS NOT APPLICABLE FOR REIMBURSABLE EXPENDITURE. ACCOR DING TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL, REIMBURSABLE EXPENDITURE WOULD NOT BE PART OF FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES. REFERRING TO ARTICLE 1 2 OF THE DOUBLE TAXATION AVOIDANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVT. OF INDIA AND USA, LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT WHAT IS STATED IN THE ARTICLE 12 OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN GOVT. OF INDIA AND USA IS ONLY GROSS AMOUNT OF FEES. IT DOES NOT REFER TO ANY REIMBURSA BLE EXPENDITURE TO BE INCURRED BY THE CLIENTS. THEREFORE, THE LEARN ED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE REIMBURSABLE EXPENDITURE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE AN EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR I TS BUSINESS. THE LEARNED COUNSEL PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGEME NT OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SIEMENS M/S LOUIS BERGER INTERNATIONAL INC. ========================= 8 AKTIONGESELLESCHAFT 310 ITR 320 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE CLAIM OF REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENDITURE WAS NOT TAXABLE IN IND IA. THE LEARNED COUNSEL ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISIO N OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITO VS. PRASAD PRODUCTION S IN I.T.A. NO.663/MAD/2003 DATED 9.4.2010 AND SUBMITTED THAT REIMBURSEMENT EXPENDITURE NEED NOT BE SUBJECTED TO DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.195(1) OF T HE ACT. THE LEARNED COUNSEL ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISIO N OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CARVI ENERGY (INDIA) PVT. L TD. VS. ACIT 126 TTJ 226. THE LEARNED COUNSEL AGAIN PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF DELHI BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. MODICON NETWORK (P) LTD. 2007 14 SOT 204 AND SUBMITTED THAT REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENDITURE DOES NOT AMOUNT TO PAY MENT FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES. THE LEARNED COUNSEL ALSO PLACE D RELIANCE ON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. TEJAJI FARASRAM KHARAWALLA LTD. 67 ITR 95 AND SUBMITTED THAT ANY AMOUNT RECEIVED IN RESPECT OF EXPENSES INCURRED, WO ULD BE EXEMPT FROM TAXATION. REFERRING TO THE CALCUTTA HIGH COUR T JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SANDERSONS & MORGANS 75 ITR 433 AND SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE SOLICITORS RECEIVED MONEY O N BEHALF OF HIS CLIENT THE SAME CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE A REVENU E RECEIPT. HE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE O F BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. TANUBHAI D. DESAI 84 ITR 713. THE LEARNED COUNSEL ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING DANFOSS INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. 268 ITR 1 AND SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO DIRECT NEXUS BETWEEN THE ACTUAL COST INCURRED BY THE FOREIGN COMPANY IN PROVIDING SERVIC ES AND FEE PAYABLE TO EACH INDIVIDUAL COMPANY AVAILING SERVICE S. THEREFORE THE AUTHORITY OF ADVANCE RULING HELD THAT THE AMOUN T DOES NOT REPRESENT REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENDITURE. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL, THIS DECISION IS NOT APPLICABL E TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. REFERRING TO THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF PROGRESSIVE CONSTRUCTION LTD. (SUPRA) THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMI TTED THAT THIS DECISION HAS NO APPLICATION TO THE FACTS OF THIS CA SE. IN THE CASE OF PROGRESSIVE CONSTRUCTION LTD. (SUPRA) THE ENTIRE PA YMENT WAS M/S LOUIS BERGER INTERNATIONAL INC. ========================= 9 MADE OTHERWISE THAN BY WAY OF CROSSED CHEQUE/DEMAND DRAFT AND THE QUESTION WAS WHETHER SEC.40A(3) ARE APPLICABLE OR NOT. REFERRING TO THE EXEMPTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 10(6A) OF THE ACT, THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXEMPTION ANY ONE OF THE CONDITIONS SHALL BE FULFIL LED. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL, WHEN THE AGREEMENT IS WITH REGARD TO A MATTER WHICH WAS INCLUDED IN THE INDUSTRIAL POLICY, APPROVAL OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT WAS NOT REQUIRED. REFERRING TO INDUSTRIAL POLICY OF GOVT. OF INDIA 1991, THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT ITEM NO.11 OF THE INDUSTRIAL POLICY SPEAKS OF PROVI DING INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES. THEREFORE, PROVIDING IN FRASTRUCTURE FACILITY IS ONE OF THE POLICY OF GOVT. OF INDIA DECLARED IN THE INDUSTRIAL POLICY. REFERRING TO SEC.80IA OF THE ACT, THE LEAR NED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY INCLUDES DEVELOPMENT OF ROADS. THE AGREEMENT WITH GOVT. OF INDIA AND OTHER GOVT. DEPARTMENT ARE ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING IN FRASTRUCTURE FACILITY SUCH AS DEVELOPMENT OF ROADS. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL, THE AGREEMENT WITH NATIONAL HIGHWA Y AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND OTHER GOVT. DEPARTMENT IS IN LINE WITH INDUSTRIAL POLICY DECLARED BY GOVT. OF INDIA. MOREOVER, ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL, THE AGREEMENT ITSELF WAS ENTERED INTO WITH GOVT. DEPARTMENTS AND NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA WHICH IS A LIMB OF THE GOVT. OF INDIA. THEREFORE, FURTHER APP ROVAL OF THE AGREEMENT BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT DOES NOT REQUIR E. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL, SPECIFIC APPROVAL OF GOVT. OF INDIA MAY BE REQUIRED, IN CASE THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO AGREEMENT FOR PROVIDING TECHNICAL SERVICE WITH ANY COMPANY WHICH IS NOT CONNECTED OR ASSOCIATED WITH GOVT. OF INDIA. SINCE THE AGREEMENT ITSELF WITH THE GOVT. AND GOVT. DEPARTMEN TS, NO SPECIFIC APPROVAL IS REQUIRED. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE REPRESENTATIVE, BOTH THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN TO SEC.10(6A) ARE FUL FILLED. REFERRING TO THE ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESE NTATIVE WITH REGARD TO THE INDUSTRIAL POLICY DECLARED IN 1991, T HE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSEL F REFERRED TO THE VERY SAME INDUSTRIAL POLICY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. THE M/S LOUIS BERGER INTERNATIONAL INC. ========================= 10 ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 H AS NOT REFERRED ANY OTHER INDUSTRIAL POLICY. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE, THE REVENUE MAY NOT BE CORRECT IN S AYING THAT THE INDUSTRIAL POLICY DECLARED IN 1991 IS OUT DATED. A CCORDING TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY OTHER INDUST RIAL POLICY, THE POLICY DECLARED IN 1991 HAS TO BE TAKEN AS SUCH. T HEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION U/S 10(6A) OF THE ACT. 7. REFERRING TO RATE OF TAX ON THE FEE FOR TECHNICA L SERVICES, THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT ARTICLE 12 OF THE DO UBLE TAXATION AVOIDANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN GOVT. OF INDIA AND USA CLEARLY SAYS THAT TAX BE LEVIED AT 15% AND NOT 20%. ACCORD ING TO LEARNED COUNSEL, IN 1998-99, 1999-2000, THE ASSESSEE COMPAN Y ITSELF CLAIMED THAT ARTICLE 7 WOULD APPLY. HOWEVER, THE A SSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND LEVIED TAX UNDER ARTICLE 12 OF THE DOUBLE TAXATION AVOIDANCE AGREEME NT. REFERRING TO ARTICLE 7 OF THE DOUBLE TAXATION AVOIDANCE AGREE MENT, THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT TAXABLE INCOME WOULD BE THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AS REDUCED BY THE E XPENSES INCURRED. IN OTHER WORDS, NET INCOME ALONE IS ASSES SABLE. REFERRING TO ARTICLE 12 OF THE DOUBLE TAXATION AVOI DANCE AGREEMENT, THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT IT SP EAKS OF TAXABILITY OF GROSS INCOME AT THE RATE OF 15%. REF ERRING TO ARTICLE 7 OF THE DOUBLE TAXATION AVOIDANCE AGREEMENT, THE L EARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THIS ARTICLE WOULD BE APPLIC ABLE ONLY TO BUSINESS ACTIVITY AND NOT TO THE SERVICE PROVIDER. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEE HAS NO OTHER ACTIVITY EXCEPT PROVIDING TECHNICAL SERVICES FOR ESTABLISHING INFRA STRUCTURE FACILITIES. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT TAKE ONE STAND BY COMPUTING THE GROSS RECEIP T AS REQUIRED UNDER ARTICLE 12 AND TAKE ANOTHER STAND FOR THE PUR POSE OF TAXING THE INCOME AT 20% UNDER ARTICLE 7 OF THE DOUBLE TAX ATION AVOIDANCE AGREEMENT READ WITH SECTION 115A OF THE A CT. THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHT LY FOUND THAT M/S LOUIS BERGER INTERNATIONAL INC. ========================= 11 THE TAX HAS TO BE LEVIED AT 15% AND NOT 20%. THE LEARNED COUNSEL PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE DELH I BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SNC LAVALIN INTERNATIONAL I NC. VS. DCIT, 118 TTJ 802. THE COUNSEL ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON T HE DECISION OF THE CALCUTTA BENCH IN THE CASE OF GENTEX MERCHANTS (P) LTD. VS. DY.DIT, 94 ITD 211. 8. REFERRING TO LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234B OF THE AC T, THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TO ESTIMATE THE INCOME AS PROVIDED IN CHAPTER XVIIC OF THE ACT FOR THE PURPOS E OF PAYING THE ADVANCE TAX. FURTHER, THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTE D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TO ESTIMATE THE INCOME RELEVANT TO PRE VIOUS YEAR AND COMPUTE THE TAX PAYABLE THEREON AT THE RATE PRESCRI BED BY THE FINANCE ACT FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. ACCOR DING TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THE ENTIRE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE GOVERNMENT AND ITS AGENCIE S FOR THE SERVICE RENDERED BY IT AND TAX WAS DEDUCTED AT SOUR CE. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEE IS N OT LIABLE TO PAY ANY ADVANCE TAX AND THERE IS NO QUESTION OF LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234B (1) OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED COUNSEL ALSO PLAC ED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF DELHI BENCH IN SNC LAVALIN INTERNAT IONAL INC. VS. DY. DDIT 118 TTJ 802 AND THE DECISION IN THE CASE O F ADIT(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)1(2)/JCIT VS. KAISER AL UMINIUM TECHNICAL SERVICES INC. 20 SOT 226. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. LET US FIRST TAKE UP THE ISSUE OF REIMBURSABLE EXPENDITURE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE REIMBURSABLE EXPENDITURE FORMS PART OF THE FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAINLY PLACED RELI ANCE IN ARTICLE 12 OF DOUBLE TAXATION AVOIDANCE AGREEMENT (DTAA) BETW EEN GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND USA AND ALSO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 9(1)(VII) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DTAA, M ORE PARTICULARLY ON ARTICLE 12, SUBMITTED THAT THE REIM BURSABLE EXPENDITURE WOULD FORM PART OF THE FEE PAYABLE FOR TECHNICAL M/S LOUIS BERGER INTERNATIONAL INC. ========================= 12 SERVICES. THE QUESTION ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER THE REIMBURSABLE EXPENDITURE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE I N THE COURSE OF ITS BUSINESS ACTIVITIES WOULD FORM PART OF THE F EES PAYABLE TOWARDS TECHNICAL SERVICES. 10. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE PROVISIONS O F THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA (NHAI), THE DTAA BETWEE N THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND THE USA AND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 9(1)(VII) OF THE ACT. AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY TH E LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE NHAI CONTAINS BOTH GENERAL AND SPE CIAL CLAUSES. THE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED ON 20 TH APRIL, 2001 IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE 7 OF THE PAPER BOOK. ADMITTEDLY, THE OTHER AGREEMENT CONTAINS SIMILAR AND IDENTICAL CLAUSES. AS PER THIS AGREEMENT THE ASSESSEE HAS TO SUPERVISE THE CONSTRU CTION OF ROADS, CONSULTANCY SERVICES IN THE FORMATION OF GOL DEN QUADRILATERAL FOR FOUR LANING AND STRENGTHENING OF THE EXISTING TWO LANES STRUCTURE IN THE STATES OF ORISSA AND WEST BE NGAL. REMUNERATION AND REIMBURSABLE EXPENDITURE PAYABLE T O THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN STATED IN CLAUSE 6.2 OF THE AGREE MENT BESIDES PAYMENT FOR PROVIDING OF CONSULTANCY SERVICES WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS: 6.1 COST ESTIMATES : CEILING AMOUNT: (A) AN ESTIMATE OF THE COST OF THE SERVICES PAYABLE IN FOREIGN CURRENCY IS SET FORTH IN APPENDIX G. AN ESTIMATE OF THE COST OF THE SERVICES PAYABLE IN LOCAL CURRENCY IS SET FORTH IN APPENDIX H. (B) EXCEPT AS MAY BE OTHERWISE AGREED UNDER CLAUSE GC 2.6 AND SUBJECT TO CLAUSE GC 6.1(C), PAYMENTS UNDER THIS CONTRACT SHALL NOT EXCEED THE CEILINGS IN FOREIGN CURRENCY AND IN LOCAL CURRENCY SPECIFIED IN THE SC. THE CONSULTANTS SHALL NOTIFY THE CLIENT AS SOON AS CUMULATIVE CHARGES INCURRED FOR THE M/S LOUIS BERGER INTERNATIONAL INC. ========================= 13 SERVICES HAVE REACHED 80% OF EITHER OF THESE CEILINGS. (C) NOTWITHSTANDING CLAUSE GC 6.1(B) HEREOF, IF PURSUANT TO CLAUSES GC 5.3, 5.4 AND 5.6 HEREOF, THE PARTIES SHALL AGREE THAT ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS IN LOCAL AND/OR FOREIGN CURRENCY, AS THE CASE MAY BE, SHALL BE MADE TO THE CONSULTANTS IN ORDER TO COVER ANY NECESSARY ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURES AND ENVISAGES IN THE COST ESTIMATES REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE GC 6.1(A) ABOVE, THE CEILING OR CEILINGS, AS THE CASE MAY BE, SET FORTH IN CLAUSE GC 6.1(B) ABOVE SHALL BE INCREASED BY THE AMOUNT OR AMOUNTS, AS THE CASE MAY BE, OF ANY SUCH ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS. 6.2 REMUNERATION AND REIMBURSABLE EXPENDITURES: (A) SUBJECT TO CEILINGS SPECIFIED IN CLAUSE GC 6.1(B) HEREOF, THE CLIENT SHALL PAY THE CONSULTANTS (I) REMUNERATION AS SET FORTH IN CLAUSE GC 6.2(B) AND (II) REIMBURSABLE EXPENDITURE AS SET FORTH IN CLAUSE GC 6.2(C). IF SPECIFIED IN THE SC, SAID REMUNERATION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PRICE ADJUSTMENT AS SPECIFIED IN SC. (B) REMUNERATION FOR THE PERSONNEL SHALL BE DETERMINED ON THE BASIS OF TIME ACTUALLY SPENT BY SUCH PERSONNEL IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THE SERVICES AFTER THE DATE DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CLAUSE GC 2.3 AND CLAUSE SC 2.3, (OR SUCH OTHER DATE AS THE PARTIES SHALL AGREE IN WRITING) (INCLUDING TIME FOR NECESSARY TRAVEL VIA THE MOST DIRECT ROUTE) AT THE RATES REFERRED TO AND SUBJECT TO SUCH ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS AS ARE SET FORTH, IN THE SC. (C) REIMBURSABLE EXPENDITURE ACTUALLY AND REASONABLY INCURRED BY THE CONSULTANTS IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THE SERVICES AS SPECIFIED IN CLAUSE SC 6.3(B). CLAUSE 6.3(B) READS AS FOLLOWS: (A) THE SC SHALL SPECIFY WHICH ITEMS OF THE REMUNERATION AND REIMBURSABLE M/S LOUIS BERGER INTERNATIONAL INC. ========================= 14 EXPENDITURE SHALL BE PAID, RESPECTIVELY, IN FOREIGN AND LOCAL CURRENCY. 11. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE HAVE TO SEE THE SPECIA L CLAUSE FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF THE EXPENDITURE IN FOREIGN CURRENC Y AND IN LOCAL CURRENCY. AS FAR AS TAX FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES, WH ICH FALLS IN CLAUSE 6.1 OF THE AGREEMENT, THERE IS NO DISPUTE. THE DIS PUTE IS ONLY IN RESPECT OF REIMBURSABLE EXPENDITURE, WHICH FALLS IN CLAUSE 6.2 OF THE AGREEMENT. SPECIAL CLAUSE 6.3(B)(II) PROVIDES FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENDITURE IN FOREIGN CURRENCY. FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONVENIENCE WE REPRODUCE THE SPECIAL CLA USE CONTAINING THE AGREEMENT AT CLAUSE 6.3(B)(II) AND 6.3.(B)(III) WHICH READ AS FOLLOWS: 6.3.(B)(II): THE REIMBURSABLE EXPENDITURES IN FOR EIGN CURRENCY SHALL BE THE FOLLOWING: (1) A PER DIEM ALLOWANCE FOR EACH OF THE EXPAT PERSONNEL FOR EVERY DAY IN WHICH SUCH PERSONNEL SHALL BE ABSENT FROM HIS HOME OFFICE AND SHALL BE OUTSIDE INDIA FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE SERVICES AT THE DAILY RATE SPECIFIED IN APPENDIX G. (2) THE FOLLOWING TRANSPORTATION COSTS: (I) THE COST OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORTATION OF THE FOREIGN PERSONNEL AND, AS SPECIFIED BELOW, ELIGIBLE DEPENDENTS OF THE FOREIGN PERSONNEL, BY THE MOST APPROPRIATE MEANS OF TRANSPORT AND THE MOST DIRECT PRACTICABLE ROUTE TO AND FROM THE CONSULTANTS HOME OFFICE, IN THE CASE OF AIR TRAVEL, THIS SHALL BE LESS THAN FIRST CLASS I.E., ECONOMY CLASS. (II) FOR ANY FOREIGN KEY PERSONNEL, ONLY ONE ROUND TRIP SHALL BE ADMISSIBLE FOR ECONOMY CLASS REGARDLESS OF ANY LENGTH OF CONTINUOUS STAY ON THE PROJECT. IN CASE THE FOREIGN KEY PERSONNEL AS PER AGREED MANNING SCHEDULE IS NOT REQUIRED CONTINUOUSLY FOR ENTIRE DURATION OF HIS INPUT PERIOD AT A STRETCH BUT HAS TO DISCONTINUE AND RESUME LATER AFTER SOME TIME GAP, ONLY IN SUCH CASES THE EMPLOYER SHALL REIMBURSE THE CONSULTANT AS PER THE REQUIREMENTS ESTABLISHED BY M/S LOUIS BERGER INTERNATIONAL INC. ========================= 15 THE MANNING SCHEDULE FOR THAT FOREIGN KEY PERSONNEL ONLY. (III) THE COST OF TRANSPORTATION TO AND FROM INDIA OF ELIGIBLE DEPENDANTS WHO SHALL BE THE SPOUSE AND NOT MORE THAN TWO (2) UNMARRIED DEPENDANT CHILDREN UNDER EIGHTEEN (18) YEARS OF AGE OF THOSE OF THE FOREIGN PERSONNEL ASSIGNED TO RESIDENT DUTY IN INDIA FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE SERVICES FOR PERIODS OF SIX (6) CONSECUTIVE MONTHS OR LONGER. ONLY ONE ROUND TRIP SHALL BE ADMISSIBLE DURING THE ENTIRE DURATION OF THE CONTRACT TO ANY ELIGIBLE DEPENDANT OF THE FOREIGN KEY PERSONNEL WHOSE INPUT IS CONTINUOUSLY FORESEEN ON THE PROJECT. FOR OTHER FOREIGN PERSONNEL WHOSE INPUT IS NOT CONTINUOUS (AS IN THE CASE OF PAVEMENT CUM MATERIAL ENGINEER), THE NUMBER OF ROUND TRIPS OF THE DEPENDANTS SHALL ALSO BE SAME AS FOR THE KEY PERSONNEL PROVIDED THAT THE DEPENDANTS SHALL STAY AFTER ARRIVAL IN INDIA FOR A MINIMUM PERIOD OF 3 (THREE) CONSECUTIVE MONTHS AND THE REMAINING INPUT IS NOT LESS THAN 6 (SIX) MONTHS FOR SUCH KEY PERSONNEL. (IV) FOR THE AIR TRAVEL OF EACH OF THE FOREIGN PERSONNEL, AND EACH ELIGIBLE DEPENDENT, THE COST OF EXCESS BAGGAGE UP TO TWENTY (20) KILOGRAMS PER PERSON, OR THE EQUIVALENT IN COST OF UNACCOMPANIED BAGGAGE OR AIR FREIGHT, AND (V) MISCELLANEOUS TRAVEL EXPENSES SUCH AS THE COST OF TRANSPORTATION TO AND FROM AIRPORTS, AIRPORT TAXES, PASSPORT, VISAS, TRAVEL PERMITS, VACCINATIONS, ETC., AT A FIXED UNIT PRICE PER ROUND TRIP AS SPECIFIED IN APPENDIX G. (3) THE COST OF SHIPMENT OF PERSONNEL EFFECTS UP TO FIFTY KILOGRAMS WEIGHT. (4) THE COST OF LABORATORY TESTS ON MATERIALS, MODEL TESTS AND OTHER TECHNICAL SERVICES AUTHORIZED OR REQUESTED BY THE CLIENT, AS SPECIFIED IN APPENDIX G. (5) THE COST OF TRAINING OF THE CLIENTS PERSONNEL OUTSIDE INDIA, AS SPECIFIED IN APPENDIX G. (6) THE COST OF ITEMS NOT COVERED IN THE FOREGOING BUT WHICH MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE CONSULTANTS M/S LOUIS BERGER INTERNATIONAL INC. ========================= 16 FOR COMPLETION OF THE SERVICES, SUBJECT TO THE PRIOR AUTHORIZATION IN WRITING BY THE CLIENT, AND (7) ANY SUCH ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS IN FOREIGN CURRENCY FOR PROPERLY PROCURED ITEMS AS THE PARTIES MAY HAVE AGREED UPON PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE GC 6.1(C). (8) AS REQUIRED WITHIN INDIA IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE LAWS. 6.3(B)(III) THE REIMBURSABLE EXPENDITURES IN LOCAL CURRENCY SHALL BE THE FOLLOWING: (1) A PER DIEM ALLOWANCE AT A RATE IN LOCAL CURRENC Y AS PER APPROVED PROPOSAL OF THE CONSULTANTS ENGAGED FOR THIS CONTRACT (APPENDIX-G AND H). (2) A LIVING ALLOWANCE FOR EACH OF THE LONG-TERM FOREIGN PERSONNEL (TWELVE) (12) MONTHS OR LONGER CONSECUTIVE STAY IN INDIA) AT THE RATES SPECIFIED IN APPENDIX H. (3) THE COST OF THE FOLLOWING LOCALLY PROCURED ITEM S: LOCAL TRANSPORTATION, OFFICE ACCOMMODATIONS, CAMP FACILITIES, CAMP SERVICES, SUBCONTRACTED SERVICES, SOIL TESTING, EQUIPMENT RENTALS, SUPPLIES, UTILITIES AND COMMUNICATION CHARGES ARISING IN INDIA, ALL IF AND TO THE EXTENT REQUIRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE SERVICES, AT RATES SPECIFIED IN APPENDIX- H. (4) THE COST OF EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS AND SUPPLIERS TO BE PROCURED LOCALLY IN INDIA AS SPECIFIED IN APPENDIX H. (5) THE LOCAL CURRENCY COST OF ANY SUBCONTRACT REQUIRED FOR THE SERVICES AND APPROVED IN WRITING BY THE CLIENT; (6) ANY SUCH ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS IN LOCAL CURRENCY FOR PROPERLY PROCURED ITEMS AS THE PARTIES MAY HAVE AGREED UPON PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE GC 6.1(C); AND (7) THE COST OF SUCH FURTHER ITEMS AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE CONSULTANTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE SERVICES, AS AGREED IN WRITING BY THE CLIENT. 12. FROM THE ABOVE CLAUSES OF THE AGREEMENT IT IS O BVIOUS THAT THE EXPENDITURES NARRATED ABOVE ARE TO BE REIMBURSE D TO THE ASSESSEE BY NHAI IN FOREIGN CURRENCY AND IN LOCAL C URRENCY. THE NHAI IN ADDITION TO REIMBURSABLE EXPENDITURE, HAS T O PAY FOR THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED M/S LOUIS BERGER INTERNATIONAL INC. ========================= 17 DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE IS THAT THESE EXPENDITU RES ARE PRIMARY LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOT THE NHAI. WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTA L REPRESENTATIVE. THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PARTIES CLEARLY SHOWS THAT CERTAIN EXPENSES ARE REIMBURSABL E IN FOREIGN CURRENCY AND CERTAIN EXPENSES ARE REIMBURSABLE IN I NDIAN CURRENCY BESIDES PAYMENT OF FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES. THE REFORE, THE EXPENDITURE REIMBURSABLE BY THE NHAI IS THE LIABILI TY OF THE NHAI AND NOT THAT OF THE ASSESSEE. AT THE INITIAL STAGE IN ORDER TO CARRY OUT THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE PARTIES, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO INCUR THE EXPENDITURE. HOWEVER, THE LIABILITY AS AGREED IN T HE AGREEMENT RESTS WITH NHAI AND THEY UNDERTOOK TO REIMBURSE THE EXPENDITURE THAT MAY BE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN ADDITION TO REIMBURSABLE EXPENDITURE THE NHAI HAS ALSO AGREED TO PAY FEE FOR SERVICES WHICH INCLUDE THE EXPENDITURE WHICH HAS TO BE INCUR RED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE REIMBURSABLE EXPENDITURES ARE IN THE NATURE OF EXPENDITURE TO BE INCURRED BY THE NHAI IN THE COURSE OF ITS EXPANSION PROGRAMME OF INFRASTRUCTURE. THE ASS ESSEE BEING A CONSULTANT HAS AGREED TO INCUR AT THE FIRST INSTANC E ON BEHALF OF NHAI ON CONDITION THAT THE SAME SHALL BE REIMBURSED BY THE NHAI. THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION THIS REIMBURSABLE EXPENDI TURE CANNOT FORM PART OF THE FEE PAYABLE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES . 13. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE DTAA BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND USA. ARTICLE 12 OF THE DTA A DEFINES ROYALTY AND FEES FOR THE SERVICES. WE HAVE CAREFUL LY GONE THROUGH CLAUSE 4 TO ARTICLE 12 OF THE DTAA. THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE IS THAT CLAUSE 4 OF ART ICLE 12 REFERS TO PAYMENT OF 'ANY KIND TO ANY PERSON' IN CONSIDERATIO N FOR RENDERING OF TECHNICAL OR CONSULTANCY SERVICES. THEREFORE, T HE WORDS 'ANY KIND TO ANY PERSON' INCLUDE THE REIMBURSABLE EXPEND ITURE ALSO. THIS CLAUSE 4 PROVIDES FOR PAYMENT OF FEES IN RESPE CT OF SERVICES INCLUDED IN THE CONSULTANCY SERVICES. IN THE CASE BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL THE AGREEMENT CLEARLY PROVIDES FOR CONSULT ANCY SERVICES IN THE FORM OF SUPERVISION. THIS IS OBVIOUS FROM THE PREAMBLE PORTION M/S LOUIS BERGER INTERNATIONAL INC. ========================= 18 OF THE AGREEMENT. THEREFORE, ALL PAYMENTS IN CONNE CTION WITH SUPERVISION OF THE FORMING OF 4 LANE ROAD WOULD FOR M PART OF FEE FOR CONSULTANCY SERVICES. CLAUSE 6.1 OF THE AGREEM ENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND NHAI PROVIDES PAYMENT OF FEE FOR C ONSULTANCY SERVICE. IN ADDITION TO THAT NHAI HAS TO INCUR CER TAIN EXPENDITURE AS PROVIDED IN CLAUSE 6.2 OF THE AGREEMENT. THESE ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURES ARE IN RESPECT OF PERSONNEL/DEPENDENTS WHO ARE AWAY FROM INDIA, ALLOWANCES AS APPROVED AND THE MAT ERIALS PROCURED LOCALLY. THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION, THE P AYMENT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AS REIMBURSABLE EXPENDITURE DOES NO T FALL WITHIN THE FOUR CORNERS OF CLAUSE 4 TO ARTICLE 12 TO THE D TAA. THE REIMBURSABLE EXPENDITURE ARE THE EXPENDITURES OF NH AI AND THE SAME WERE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE OF THE A GREEMENT. BUT FOR THE AGREEMENT, THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT HAVE INCURRED THIS EXPENDITURE. THEREFORE, THE SAME DO NOT IN ANY WAY BE INCLUDED IN THE SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE. THERE FORE, IN OUR OPINION, CLAUSE 4 TO THE DTAA MAY NOT BE APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. 14. WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 9(1)(VII) OF THE ACT. THE REVENUE PLACING RELIANCE IN EXPLANATION 2 TO SECTION 9(1)(VII) CONTENDED THAT F EE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES MEANS ANY CONSIDERATION FOR RENDERING OF A NY MANAGERIAL, TECHNICAL OR CONSULTANCY SERVICES. AS OBSERVED EAR LIER IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED A SEPARATE FEE FOR CONSULTANCY SERVICES PROVIDED IN PURSUANCE TO THE A GREEMENT. APART FROM THE CONSULTANCY SERVICES, THE NHAI HAS A GREED TO REIMBURSE CERTAIN EXPENDITURES WHICH ARE TO BE INCU RRED BY THE NHAI. IN THE ORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES SUCH EXPENDITU RES ARE TO BE INCURRED ONLY BY THE NHAI AND NOT BY THE ASSESSEE. 15. LET US NOW EXAMINE ITEM-WISE EXPENDITURE SAID T O BE REIMBURSED BY THE NHAI. A PER DIEM ALLOWANCE FOR E ACH OF THE EXPORT PERSONNEL FOR EVERY DAY IN WHICH SUCH PERSON NEL SHALL BE ABSENT FROM HIS HOME OFFICE AND SHALL BE OUTSIDE IN DIA FOR THE M/S LOUIS BERGER INTERNATIONAL INC. ========================= 19 PURPOSE OF SERVICE AT THE DAILY RATES. THIS EXPEND ITURE SHALL BE REIMBURSABLE BY THE NHAI. THE QUESTION ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER THIS EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE O N BEHALF OF THE NHAI WOULD FORM PART OF SERVICES AS PROVIDED IN CLA USE 4(A) OF ARTICLE 12. IN THE DTAA ITSELF EXAMPLE 2 IN THE ME MORANDUM OF UNDERTAKING CLARIFIED THAT THIS KIND OF EXPENDITURE WOULD NOT FORM PART OF THE SERVICES. IN FACT, AS PER EXAMPLE 2, I T HAS TO BE CLARIFIED AS FOLLOWS: EXAMPLE 2 : FACTS: 'AN INDIAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY PRODUCES A PRODUCT THAT MUST BE MANUFACTURED UNDER STERILE CONDITIONS USING MACHINERY THAT MUST BE KEPT COMPLETELY FREE OF BACTERIAL OR OTHER HARMFUL DEPOSITS. AN US COMPANY HAS DEVELOPED SPECIAL CLEANING PROCESS FOR REMOVING SUCH DEPOSITS FROM THAT TYPE OF MACHINERY. THE US COMPANY ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT WITH THE INDIAN COMPANY UNDER WHICH THE FORMER WILL CLEAN THE LATEST MACHINERY ON A REGULAR BASIS. AS A PART OF THE ARRANGEMENT THE US COMPANY LEASES TO THE INDIAN COMPANY A PIECE OF EQUIPMENT WHICH ALLOWS THE INDIAN COMPANY TO ENSURE THE LEVEL OF BACTERIAL DEPOSIT ON ITS MACHINERY IN ORDER FOR IT TO WHICH WHEN CLEANING IS REQUIRED. ALL THE PAYMENTS FOR THE SERVICES, FEES FOR INCLUDED SERVICES? ANALYSIS : IN THIS EXAMPLE, THE PROVISION OF CLEANING SERVICES BY THE U.S. COMPANY AND THE RENTAL OF THE MONITORING EQUIPMENT ARE RELATED TO EACH OTHER. HOWEVER, THE CLEARLY PREDOMINANT PURPOSE OF THE ARRANGEMENT IS THE PROVISION OF CLEANING SERVICES. THUS, ALTHOUGH THE CLEANING SERVICES MIGHT BE CONSIDERED TECHNICAL SERVICES, THEY ARE NOT ANCILLARY AND SUBSIDIARY TO THE RENTAL OF THE MONITORING EQUIPMENT. ACCORDINGLY, THE CLEANING SERVICES ARE NOT INCLUDED SERVICES WITHIN THE MEANING OF PARAGRAPH 4 (A) . 16. IN THIS EXAMPLE THE PROVISION OF CLEANING SERVI CES BY THE US COMPANY AND THE RENTAL OF THE MONITORING EQUIPMENT ARE RELATED TO EACH OTHER. HOWEVER, CLEARLY PREDOMINANT PURPOS E OF THE M/S LOUIS BERGER INTERNATIONAL INC. ========================= 20 ARRANGEMENT IS THE PROVISION FOR CLEANING SERVICES. THUS ALTHOUGH THE CLEANING SERVICES MIGHT BE CONSIDERED AS TECHNI CAL SERVICES, THEY ARE NOT ANCILLARY AND SUBSIDIARY TO THE RENTAL OF MONITORING EQUIPMENT. ACCORDINGLY, CLEANING SERVICES ARE NOT INCLUDED SERVICES WITHIN THE MEANING OF PARAGRAPH 4(A). IN THE CASE BEFORE US ALSO THE PREDOMINANT PURPOSE OF THE AGREEMENT BE TWEEN THE PARTIES IS TO PROVIDE CONSULTANCY SERVICES IN THE F ORMATION OF FOUR LANE ROAD IN THE STATES OF ORISSA AND WEST BENGAL. IN THE COURSE OF FORMATION OF FOUR LANE ROAD, THE NHAI HAS TO INC UR CERTAIN EXPENDITURE. THE REIMBURSABLE EXPENDITURES ARE THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH ARE OTHERWISE THE LI ABILITY OF THE NHAI IN THE COURSE OF ITS FORMATION OF 4 LANE ROAD. THE SERVICES OF THE ASSESSEE IS TO PROVIDE ONLY CONSULTANCY SERVICE S TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE FORMATION OF 4 LANE ROAD. THEREFOR E, THE PAYMENT RELATABLE TO THE TECHNICAL ADVICE PROVIDED BY THE A SSESSEE IN THE FORMATION OF THE ROAD ALONE TO BE TREATED AS FEE FO R TECHNICAL SERVICES. THE PAYMENT FOR THE PERSONNEL WHO ARE AB SENT FROM INDIA ARE NOT FOR THE CONSULTANCY SERVICES. MERELY BECAUSE SUCH PERSONNEL HAPPEN TO BE THE EMPLOYEES OF THE ASSESSE E IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE EXPENDITURE HAS SOME CONNECTION WITH THE SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE IN INDIA. IN OUR OP INION, THE REIMBURSABLE EXPENDITURE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE O THER THAN THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED FOR THE SERVICES RENDERED CA NNOT FORM PART OF THE FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES. IN VIEW OF EXAM PLE 2 GIVEN IN THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING THE PAYMENT REIMBURSED BY THE NHAI IS NOT FOR THE INCLUDED SERVICES ALSO. THEREF ORE, IN OUR OPINION, IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES. 17. SIMILARLY EXPLANATION 2 TO SECTION 9(1)(VII) SP EAKS OF THE CONSIDERATION FOR RENDERING MANAGERIAL, TECHNICAL O R CONSULTANCY SERVICES. THEREFORE, ANY AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE AS SESSEE FOR RENDERING CONSULTANCY SERVICES IN THE FORMATION OF FOUR LANE ROAD ALONE CAN BE CONSIDERED AS FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVIC ES. THIS EXPLANATION 2 DOES NOT APPLICABLE FOR THE AMOUNTS R ECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AS REIMBURSABLE EXPENDITURE FROM THE NHAI. AS ALREADY M/S LOUIS BERGER INTERNATIONAL INC. ========================= 21 OBSERVED REIMBURSABLE EXPENDITURES ARE THE EXPENDIT URES IN THE ORDINARY COURSE TO BE INCURRED BY THE NHAI AND NOT BY THE ASSESSEE. MERELY BECAUSE CERTAIN EXPENDITURES ARE RELATABLE TO THE EMPLOYEES OF THE ASSESSEE IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE PAYMENT WAS IN CONNECTION WITH PROVIDING OF CONSULTANCY SER VICES. AT BEST IT MAY BE SAID THAT THE PAYMENT RECEIVED IN PURSUAN CE TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES AND NOT IN CONNECTION WITH PROVIDING CONSULTANCY SERVICES. THEREFORE, EVEN UN DER EXPLANATION 2 TO SECTION 9(1)(VII) IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES. 18. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE DECISION OF THE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING (AAR) IN TIMKEN INDIA LTD., IN RE (2005) 273 ITR 67. IN THE CASE BEFORE THE AAR, THE INDIAN COMPANY WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF BEARINGS AND OTHER ANCILLARY PRODUCTS. THE INDIAN COMPANY WAS A SUBSIDIARY OF USA NON RESIDENT COMPANY. BY AN AGRE EMENT DATED 2.8.2000 TIMKEN USA WAS TO RENDER IN THE USA SERVIC ES INCLUDING MANAGEMENT SERVICES, SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND COMPUTE R USAGE, COMMUNICATION SERVICES, ENGINEERING SERVICES, ETC. AS PER THE AGREEMENT THE INDIAN COMPANY HAS TO PAY ONLY THE AC TUAL COST INCURRED BY THE NON RESIDENT COMPANY IN PROVIDING S ERVICES AND THERE IS NO PROFIT ELEMENT WOULD BE ADDED TO THE CO ST. THE INDIAN COMPANY BEFORE MAKING PAYMENT TO NON-RESIDENT COMPA NY APPROACHED THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S. 195(2) OF THE ACT TO REMIT THE AMOUNT WITHOUT DEDUCTING TAX AT SOURCE CONTENDI NG THAT THE AMOUNT WAS ONLY REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENDITURE AND TH E COST WAS INCURRED BY NON RESIDENT COMPANY. THE ASSESSING OF FICER REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE APPROACHED THE AAR. THE AAR HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS TO DEDUCT TA X WHILE MAKING PAYMENT U/S. 195(2) OF THE ACT. THE AAR FUR THER OBSERVED THAT THE QUESTION OF COMPUTING NET INCOME FOR THE P URPOSE OF WITHHOLDING THE TAX U/S. 195(2) DID NOT ARISE. IN THE CASE BEFORE US IT IS NOT THE CASE OF DEDUCTION OF TAX WHILE MAK ING THE PAYMENT. THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE REIMBURSABLE EXPENDITUR E WOULD FORM M/S LOUIS BERGER INTERNATIONAL INC. ========================= 22 PART OF THE FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES. AS ALREADY OBSERVED, NHAI AGREED TO INCUR THE EXPENDITURE. THEREFORE, THE LI ABILITY IS THAT OF NHAI AND NOT THAT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HA S TO SEPARATELY INCUR EXPENDITURE, FOR WHICH SEPARATE PA YMENT WAS MADE TOWARDS FEES FOR SERVICES. THEREFORE, THERE I S A CLEAR DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE PAYMENT MADE FOR SERVICE AN D REIMBURSABLE EXPENDITURE. THEREFORE, THE DECISION OF THE AAR MAY NOT BE APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 44D(B) WOULD BE APPLICABLE ONLY IN RESPECT OF DEDUCTION AT SOURCE. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, WE HAVE TO COMPUTE THE NET TAXABLE INCOME FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAXATION. THEREF ORE, THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH ARE TO B E REIMBURSED BY THE NHAI ARE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE NET TAXABLE INCOME. IN VIEW OF THIS FACTUAL SITUATION, IN OUR OPINION, THI S DECISION OF THE AAR IN THE CASE OF TIMKEN (I) LTD. (SUPRA) MAY NOT BE OF ANY ASSISTANCE TO THE REVENUE. 19. WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE DECISIO N OF THE AAR IN THE CASE OF AT & S INDIA P. LTD., IN RE (2006) 187 ITR 421. IN THE CASE BEFORE THE AAR, THE INDIAN COMPANY WAS A S UBSIDIARY OF AT & S, AUSTRALIA, A NON RESIDENT COMPANY. THE IND IAN COMPANY ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE AUSTRALIAN COMPA NY UNDER WHICH THE NON RESIDENT COMPANY UNDERTOOK TO ASSIGN OR CAUSE ITS SUBSIDIARY TO ASSIGN ITS QUALIFIED EMPLOYEES TO THE INDIAN COMPANY. THE NON RESIDENT COMPANY RETAINED THE RIG HT OVER THE EMPLOYEES AND HAD THE POWER TO REMOVE FROM THE INDI AN COMPANY. THE ONLY CONDITION IS THAT THE INDIAN COM PANY HAS TO REPLACE SUCH EMPLOYEES WITH THE SIMILARLY QUALIFIED INDIVIDUAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS TO COMPENSATE THE NON RESIDENT COMPA NY TOWARDS ALL COSTS THAT WERE ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY IN CONNECTION WITH SUCH EMPLOYEES. ON THIS FACTUAL SITUATION, THE AAR RULED THAT THE NON RESIDENT COMPANY OFFERED THE SERVICES OF TECHNI CAL EXPERTS TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE AAR RULED THAT PAYMENTS MADE B Y THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WERE FOR RENDERING SERVICES OF TEC HNICAL OR OTHER PERSONNEL. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO DE DUCT TAX U/S. M/S LOUIS BERGER INTERNATIONAL INC. ========================= 23 195(2) OF THE ACT. IN THE CASE BEFORE THE AAR THE VERY AGREEMENT IS TO DEPUTE THE QUALIFIED EMPLOYEES TO SERVE THE I NDIAN COMPANY. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE REIMBURSED THE SALARY AND O THER EXPENDITURE PAYABLE TO THE EMPLOYEES BY THE NON RES IDENT COMPANY. APART FROM THE SALARY FOR THE PERSONNEL EM PLOYED IN THE INDIAN COMPANY NO OTHER PAYMENT IS REQUIRED TO BE M ADE BY THE INDIAN COMPANY. IN OTHER WORDS, NO OTHER EXPENSES ARE REQUIRED TO BE MET BY THE INDIAN COMPANY. IN THE CASE BEFOR E US, APART FROM FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES, NHAI HAS TO INCUR CERTAIN EXPENDITURE IN CONNECTION WITH THE EXECUTION OF THE FOUR LANE ROAD AS PER THE AGREEMENT. MERELY BECAUSE SUCH EXPENDIT URES ARE RELATABLE TO THE EMPLOYEES OF THE ASSESSEE IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT WILL FORM PART OF THE FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES. APART FROM THE REIMBURSABLE EXPENDITURE, THE NHAI IS ALSO LIABLE T O PAY FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES AS PROVIDED IN CLAUSE 6.1 OF THE AGREEMENT. BUT FOR THE AGREEMENT, THE ASSESSEE NEED NOT INCUR THE EXPENDITURE. AS ALREADY OBSERVED, IN THE ORDINARY COURSE, THE EX PENDITURE HAS TO BE INCURRED BY THE NHAI. THE ASSESSEE WAS SEPAR ATELY PAID IN RESPECT OF FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES. THEREFORE, THIS DECISION OF THE AAR ALSO MAY NOT OF ANY ASSISTANCE TO THE REVEN UE. 20. WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE DECISIO N OF THE AAR IN DVH CONSULTANTS BV, IN RE (2005) 277 ITR 97. IN THE CASE BEFORE THE AAR THE APPLICANT COMPANY WAS A FOREIGN COMPANY INCORPORATED IN THE NETHERLANDS ENGAGED IN THE BUSI NESS OF PROVIDING CONSULTANCY SERVICES. THE FOREIGN COMPAN Y SENT ITS EMPLOYEES FROM THE NETHERLANDS TO WORK ON VARIOUS P ROJECTS IN INDIA. THE EMPLOYEES DURING THEIR STAY IN INDIA CO NTINUED TO RECEIVE SALARY FROM THE NON RESIDENT COMPANY. ON T HIS FACTUAL SITUATION, THE AAR RULED THAT THE REMUNERATION OF T HE EMPLOYEES WAS BORNE BY A PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT. THEREFORE, THE SAME IS DEDUCTIBLE WHILE COMPUTING THE PERMANENT ESTABLISHM ENT'S TAXABLE PROFITS IN THE SOURCE COUNTRY. IN THE CASE BEFORE US IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO PAYMENT OF SALARY TO THE EMP LOYEES OF THE NON RESIDENT COMPANY. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT CLAIMING ANY M/S LOUIS BERGER INTERNATIONAL INC. ========================= 24 DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF SALARY PAID TO ITS EMPLOYEE S. AS PER THE AGREEMENT, CERTAIN EXPENDITURE HAS TO BE INCURRED I NITIALLY BY THE NON RESIDENT COMPANY WHICH OTHERWISE HAS TO BE INCU RRED BY THE NHAI. HOWEVER, IT WOULD BE REIMBURSED BY THE NHAI. THEREFORE, SUCH A REIMBURSED EXPENDITURE WOULD NOT FORM PART O F THE FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES. THE AAR IN THE CASE OF DHV CON SULTANTS BV (SUPRA) HAD NO OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE REIMBURSABL E EXPENDITURE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE BESIDES FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES. IN THE CASE BEFORE US IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESS EE ITSELF OFFERED FOR TAXATION IN RESPECT OF FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVIC ES IN CONNECTION WITH THE EXECUTION OF THE SERVICES. THEREFORE, THI S DECISION OF THE AAR ALSO MAY NOT BE OF ANY ASSISTANCE TO THE REVENU E. WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE JUDGEMENT OF THE AN DHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, UPPER SILER (SUPRA) AND THAT OF THE APEX COURT IN TRANSMISSION CORPORATION OF A.P. LTD. (SUPRA). IN BOTH THE JUDGEMENTS, THE COURT HAS CON SIDERED THE DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE U/S. 195 OF THE ACT. IN BOTH THE CASES, THE COURT HAS NO OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE REIMBURSA BLE EXPENDITURE. THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION, THE SAME M AY NOT BE APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 21. WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE JUDGEME NT OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING PROJECTS PVT. LTD. (1993) 202 ITR 1014. IN THE CASE BEFORE THE DELHI HIGH COURT THE ASSESSEE HAD AGREEMENT WITH M/S. ETAG, A SWISS COMP ANY, FOR RENDERING SERVICES. THE ASSESSEE WOULD RECEIVE A M INIMUM SUM OF RS.1,20,000 PER MONTH FOR THE SERVICES RENDERED BESIDES REIMBURSEMENT OF CERTAIN COSTS AND EXPENDITURE INCU RRED BY THE ASSESSEE WHILE RENDERING THE SERVICES AS PER THE AG REEMENT. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER DISALLOWED THE EXPENSES INCURRED . ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE DELHI BENCH OF THIS TRIB UNAL, IT WAS HELD THAT THE REIMBURSEMENT OF THE EXPENDITURE DID NOT CONSTITUTE INCOME AS THE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED ON BEHALF OF T HE SWISS COMPANY. ON A REFERENCE TO THE DELHI HIGH COURT A T THE INSTANCE OF THE REVENUE, THE DELHI HIGH COURT AFTER CONSIDER ING THE M/S LOUIS BERGER INTERNATIONAL INC. ========================= 25 JUDGEMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. TEJAJI FARASRAM KHARAWALLA LTD. (1968) 67 ITR 95 HELD THAT THE REIM BURSABLE EXPENDITURE CANNOT FORM PART OF THE TAXABLE INCOME. ACCORDINGLY IT WAS HELD THAT THE REIMBURSABLE EXPENDITURES ARE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE TOTAL INCOME. IN VIEW OF THIS JUDGEMENT O F THE DELHI HIGH COURT, IN OUR OPINION, THE REIMBURSABLE EXPENDITURE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF RENDERING SERVICES CANNOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME. THEREFORE, IT HAS TO BE EXCLUDED. 22. WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE JUDGEME NT OF THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. SANDERSON & MORGAN ( 1970) 75 ITR 433. IN THE CASE BEFORE THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT A FIRM OF SOLICITORS RECEIVED MONEY FROM THEIR CLIENTS. THE QUESTION AR OSE BEFORE THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT WAS WHETHER THE MONEY RECEIVED BY THE SOLICITORS IN THE COURSE OF THEIR PROFESSIONAL ACTI VITIES WOULD FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME OR NOT. THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE MONEY RECEIVED BY THE SOLICITORS WAS NOT REVENU E RECEIPT. IT WAS FURTHER HELD THAT WHEN A SOLICITOR RECEIVED MON EY FROM HIS CLIENTS HE DOES NOT DO SO AS A TRADING RECEIPT BUT HE RECEIVES THE MONEY FROM THE PRINCIPAL IN CAPACITY AS AN AGENT. THEREFORE, THE MONEY RECEIVED DOES NOT HAVE ANY PROFIT MAKING QUAL ITY. IN THIS CASE ALSO THE MONEY WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON BEHALF OF THEIR CLIENTS FOR INCURRING THE EXPENDITURE. THERE FORE, THE MONEY RECEIVED DID NOT HAVE THE PROFIT MAKING QUALITY AS HELD BY THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT. IN OUR OPINION, THIS JUDGEMEN T OF THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT ALSO SUPPORTS THE CASE OF THE A SSESSEE. 23. WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE JUDGEME NT OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. TEJAJI FARASRAM K HARAWALLA LTD. (1968) 67 ITR 95. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE APEX COU RT ACTED AS A SELLING AGENT OF CIBA (INDIA) LTD. THE ASSESSEE WA S ENTITLED TO COMMISSION OF 12.5% ON SALES. OUT OF THE 12.5%, 7. 5% WAS TREATED AS SELLING COMMISSION AND 5% AS COMPENSATIO N IN LIEU OF CONTINGENCY EXPENSES WHICH IT HAD TO MEET. THE QU ESTION AROSE BEFORE THE APEX COURT WAS WHETHER THE 5% SELLING CO MMISSION IN M/S LOUIS BERGER INTERNATIONAL INC. ========================= 26 LIEU OF THE CONTINGENCY EXPENDITURE WOULD FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME OR NOT. THE APEX COURT HELD THAT 5% OF THE EXPENSES IN LIEU OF THE CONTINGENCY EXPENSES WAS FOR THE EXPEND ITURE INCURRED IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THE DUTIES OF THE RESPONDENT AS SELLING AGENT. THEREFORE, IT WILL NOT FORM PART OF THE TAX ABLE INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME WAS EXEMPT. IN VIEW OF THIS JUDGEMENT OF THE APEX COURT, THE REIMBURSABLE EXPENDITURE RECEIV ED BY THE ASSESSEE IN PURSUANCE TO THE AGREEMENT CANNOT FORM PART OF THE TAXABLE INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME HAS TO BE EX CLUDED. 24. WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE JUDGEME NT OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. TANUBAI D. DESAI (1972 ) 84 ITR 713. IN THE CASE BEFORE THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, THE ASSESSEE WAS A PRACTISING SOLICITOR. IN THE COURSE OF CARRYING ON HIS PROFESSION THE ASSESSEE USED TO RECEIVE MONEY FROM OR ON BEHAL F OF HIS CLIENTS. THE MONEY RECEIVED WAS DEPOSITED BY HIM I N SEPARATE CURRENT ACCOUNT WITH IMPERIAL BANK OF INDIA. SUBSE QUENTLY THE ASSESSEE WITHDREW A SUM OF RS.3.25 LAKHS AND PLACED THE SAME IN FIXED DEPOSIT WITH CHARTERED BANK. THE ASSESSEE RE NEWED THE ACCOUNT FROM TIME TO TIME TOGETHER WITH INTEREST EA RNED THEREON. THE ASSESSEE EARNED INTEREST ON THE FIXED DEPOSIT. THE INTEREST EARNED ON THE FIXED DEPOSIT WAS NOT ADJUSTED BY APP ORTIONING IT TO DIFFERENT CLIENTS WHOSE MONEYS WERE DEPOSITED IN TH E BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SHOW THE INTEREST IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE QUESTION AROSE BEFORE THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT WAS WHETHER THE INTEREST ACCRUED IN THE FIXED DEPOSIT W ITH CHARTERED BANK WAS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OR NOT. THE BO MBAY HIGH COURT AFTER ELABORATELY EXAMINING THE ISSUE FOUND T HAT THE MONEYS RECEIVED BY THE SOLICITOR FROM HIS CLIENTS ARE HELD BY HIM IN FIDUCIARY CAPACITY. EVEN THE INCOME RECEIVED FROM SUCH MONEY MUST EQUALLY BE HELD BY THE SOLICITOR IN A FIDUCIAR Y CAPACITY. WHAT THE SOLICITOR ACTUALLY DOES WITH THE INCOME, I.E., WHETHER HE APPROPRIATES IT TO HIMSELF OR NOT IS A MATTER OF NO CONSEQUENCE. IF THE SOLICITOR APPROPRIATES THE INTEREST ACCRUED ON SUCH DEPOSIT TO HIMSELF THAT WOULD AMOUNT TO A BREACH OF HIS FIDUCI ARY RELATIONSHIP M/S LOUIS BERGER INTERNATIONAL INC. ========================= 27 AND WHATEVER MAY BE THE CONSEQUENCES IN LAW WOULD F OLLOW. BUT HIS UNAUTHORISED ACT OF CONVERTING ANY PART OF THE CORPUS OR EVEN THE INCOME DERIVED THEREFROM WOULD NOT CONVERT THOS E MONEYS HELD BY HIM FOR HIS BENEFIT. ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS H ELD THAT THE INTEREST INCOME WHICH WAS NEITHER DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME NOR ADJUSTED TO THE CLIENTS WAS HELD TO BE N OT TAXABLE. IN THE CASE BEFORE US THE FACTS ARE ALMOST SIMILAR. T HE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE MONEY AS A REIMBURSEMENT AFTER INCURRI NG THE EXPENDITURE. IN THE CASE BEFORE THE BOMBAY HIGH CO URT, THE MONEY WAS RECEIVED BY THE SOLICITOR IN ADVANCE. IN THE CASE BEFORE US THE MONEY WAS RECEIVED AFTER INCURRING TH E EXPENDITURE BY WAY OF REIMBURSEMENT. THEREFORE, THE REIMBURSAB LE EXPENDITURE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT FORM PA RT OF THE TOTAL INCOME. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, IN OUR OP INION, THE REIMBURSABLE EXPENDITURE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE C ANNOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIN D ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY. ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 25. THE NEXT CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE IS THAT THE GOVERNMENT OF HAS NOT AP PROVED THE AGREEMENT AS REQUIRED U/S. 10(6A) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO AGREEMENT WIT H STATE GOVERNMENTS OR THE AGENCY OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING CONSULTANCY IN FORMATION OF IN FRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES. THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE INDUSTRIAL POLICY OF GOVERNMENT OF INDIA I S TO DEVELOP INFRASTRUCTURE. THEREFORE, SPECIFIC APPROVAL OF TH E CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IS NOT REQUIRED FOR CLAIMING EXEMPTION U /S. 10(6A) OF THE ACT. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 10(6A) OF THE ACT WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS: '(6A) WHERE IN THE CASE OF A FOREIGN COMPANY DERIVI NG INCOME BY WAY OF ROYALTY OR FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES RECEIVED FROM GOVERNMENT OR AN INDIAN CONCERN IN PURSUANCE OF AN AGREEMENT MADE BY THE FOREIGN COMPANY WITH GOVERNMENT OR THE INDIAN M/S LOUIS BERGER INTERNATIONAL INC. ========================= 28 CONCERN AFTER THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 1976 BUT BEFOR E THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2002 AND,- (A) WHERE THE AGREEMENT RELATES TO A MATTER INCLUDED IN THE INDUSTRIAL POLICY, FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE, OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, SUCH AGREEMENT IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THAT POLICY; AND (B) IN ANY OTHER CASE, THE AGREEMENT IS APPROVED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, THE TAX ON SUCH INCOME IS PAYABLE, UNDER THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT, BY GOVERNMENT OR THE INDIAN CONCERN TO THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, THE TAX SO PAID.' 26. FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S. 10(6 A) AN AGREEMENT NEEDS TO BE ENTERED INTO AFTER 31ST DAY O F MARCH, 1976 BUT BEFORE THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2002 IN RELATION TO MATTERS INCLUDED IN THE INDUSTRIAL POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. IN ANY OTHER CASE THE APPROVAL OF THE GOVERNMENT IS RE QUIRED. THE INDUSTRIAL POLICY OF GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AS DISCLOS ED IN THE YEAR 1991 CLEARLY SHOWS THAT DEVELOPMENT OF INFRASTRUCTU RE IS ONE OF THE POLICY INCLUDED AS ITEM NO. 11. THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE IS THAT THE POLICY WAS DECLARED IN THE YEAR 1991. THEREFORE, IT IS OUTDATED. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, HOWEVER, COULD NOT BRING TO THE NOT ICE OF THE BENCH ANY LATEST POLICY WHICH WAS DECLARED IN THE Y EAR RELEVANT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. MOREOVER, AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF REFERS TO THE VERY SAME INDUSTRIAL POLICY IN SOME OF THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFOR E, WE HAVE NO HESITATION IN TAKING NOTE OF THE INDUSTRIAL POLICY AS DECLARED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA IN THE YEAR 1991 IS APPLICABLE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ALSO. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THA T DEVELOPMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE IS ONE OF THE INDUSTRIAL POLICY OF T HE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AS DISCLOSED IN ITEM NO. 11 OF THE POLICY. O NCE DEVELOPMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE FALLS IN THE INDUSTRIAL POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA THEN, AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, APPROVAL OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IS NOT A PRE- M/S LOUIS BERGER INTERNATIONAL INC. ========================= 29 REQUIREMENT FOR CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S. 10(6A) OF T HE ACT. THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION, SINCE THE DEVELOPMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE FALLS WITHIN THE INDUSTRIAL POLICY OF GOVERNMENT OF INDIA SPECIFIC APPROVAL MAY NOT BE REQUIRED FOR CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S. 10(6A) OF THE ACT. 27. THE NEXT CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE IS THAT IN VIEW OF SECTION 44D(B) AN D SECTION 150A(3) THE PAYMENT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE CONSTRUED AS FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES. WE HAVE C AREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44D AND SECTION 1 50A OF THE ACT. SECTION 44D PROVIDES SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR COMPUTA TION OF INCOME BY WAY OF ROYALTY IN THE CASE OF FOREIGN COMPANY. SUB CLAUSE (B) SAYS THAT NO DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF ANY EXPENDITUR E OR ALLOWANCE SHALL BE ALLOWED IN COMPUTING THE INCOME BY WAY OF ROYALTY OR FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES RECEIVED FROM THE GOVERNMENT OR AN INDIAN CONCERN. THIS SECTION CLEARLY SAYS THAT WHILE COMP UTING THE INCOME BY WAY OF ROYALTY AND TECHNICAL SERVICES NO DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF EXPENDITURE WOULD BE ALLOWED U/S. 28 TO 44C OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, ANY EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RELATION TO FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES CANNOT BE DEDUCTED. AS RIGHTLY OBSERVED BY THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED FEE FO R TECHNICAL SERVICES AND HAS NOT CLAIMED ANY EXPENDITURE FROM T HE FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES. AS WE HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED, THE REIMBURSABLE EXPENDITURE MAY NOT FORM PART OF THE F REE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES. THEREFORE, ASSESSING OFFICER M AY NOT BE CORRECT IN PLACING RELIANCE U/S. 44D(B) OF THE ACT. THE REIMBURSABLE EXPENDITURES ARE TO BE INCURRED BY THE NHAI AND OTHER CLIENTS. THEREFORE, IT WAS THE EXPENDITURE O F NHAI AND OTHER CLIENTS AND DEFINITELY IT IS NOT THE EXPENDITURE OF THE ASSESSEE. 28. WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE DECISI ON OF THE TRIBUNAL IN PROGRESSIVE CONSTRUCTION (SUPRA). THE FACTS IN PROGRESSIVE CONSTRUCTION (SUPRA) ARE DEFINITELY NON DIFFERENT SET OF FACTS. THE TRIBUNAL IN THAT CASE HAS NO OCCASION T O CONSIDER M/S LOUIS BERGER INTERNATIONAL INC. ========================= 30 WHETHER THE REIMBURSABLE EXPENDITURE WOULD FORM PAR T OF FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES. THEREFORE, THIS DECISION MAY N OT BE ANY ASSISTANCE TO THE REVENUE. 29. NOW COMING TO SECTION 115A OF THE ACT, THIS PRO VISION IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING EXPENSES FROM THE FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES. AS OBSERVED BY THE CIT(A) IT CANNOT BE MEANT TO SAY THAT REIMBURSABLE EXPENDITURE WILL BE TAXED AS INCO ME. IN FACT, THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE COU RSE OF CARRYING ON ITS ACTIVITIES IN INDIA CANNOT BE DEDUCTED IN VI EW OF SECTION 115A(3). HOWEVER, THE EXPENDITURE NOW REIMBURSED W AS THE EXPENDITURE TO BE INCURRED BY THE NHAI. THEREFORE, IT IS THE EXPENDITURE OF THE ASSESSEE'S CLIENT AND NOT THAT O F THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, SECTION 115A(3) ALSO HAS NO APPLICATION AT ALL. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMI TY IN THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY. ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS CO NFIRMED. 30. THE NEXT ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS REIM BURSEMENT OF SERVICE TAX. SERVICE TAX HAS TO BE COLLECTED BY THE RESPECTIVE SERVICE PROVIDERS FROM THE CLIENTS AND IT HAS TO BE PAID TO THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT. THE LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY TO COLLECT AND PAY THE SAME TO THE GOVERNMENT. THE AS SESSEE NEED NOT PAY FROM HIS POCKET. THERE IS A LOT OF DIFFEREN CE BETWEEN PAYMENT SERVICE TAX IS AND INCOME-TAX. SERVICE TAX IS JUST LIKE SALES TAX. IN THE CASE OF SALES TAX ALSO THE RESPEC TIVE TRADER HAS TO COLLECT THE TAX AND REMIT THE SAME TO GOVERNMENT AC COUNT. THEREFORE, THE LIABILITY TO PAY EITHER SALES TAX OR SERVICE TAX IS NOT ON THE TRADER OR SERVICE PROVIDER. THE LIABILITY O F THE TRADER/ SERVICE PROVIDER IS ONLY TO COLLECT FROM THE RESPEC TIVE PERSONS. IN CASE OF DEFAULT, SERVICE PROVIDER/TRADER MAY BE HEL D RESPONSIBLE TO PAY THE SAME. IN THE CASE BEFORE US THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PARTIES CLEARLY SAYS THAT SERVICE TAX P AYABLE SHALL BE REIMBURSED SEPARATELY ON PRODUCTION OF ORIGINAL REC EIPT BY THE ASSESSEE. FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONVENIENCE, WE ARE R EPRODUCING M/S LOUIS BERGER INTERNATIONAL INC. ========================= 31 CLAUSE 1.10.3 IN THE AGREEMENT WHICH IS AVAILABLE A T PAGE 36 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 'HOWEVER, THE CONSULTANCY SERVICE TAX PAYABLE IN INDIA FOR PROVIDING THIS CONSULTANCY SERVICE SHALL BE PAID/REIMBURSED BY THE CLIENT SEPARATELY. THE CONSULTANT SHALL PRODUCE THE ORIGINAL RECEIPT TO TH E CLIENT IN THIS REGARD AS EVIDENCE FOR CLAIM.' 31. IN VIEW OF THIS CLAUSE WHAT WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AFTER PAYING THE SERVICE TAX AND ON PRODUCTION OF T HE ORIGINAL RECEIPT THE RESPECTIVE CLIENT REIMBURSES THE SAME. IN THE NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE COLLECTED TH E SERVICE TAX FROM THE RESPECTIVE CLIENTS AND WOULD HAVE PAID THE SAME. THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION, REIMBURSEMENT OF THE SER VICE TAX CANNOT FORM PART OF THE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. F EE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICE IS FOR THE SERVICE RENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE . SERVICE TAX WOULD NOT FORM PART OF FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES. IN OTHER WORDS, SERVICE TAX IS NOT AN EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE A SSESSEE. IT IS A STATUTORY LEVY ON THE PERSON WHO AVAILED THE SERVIC E FROM THE ASSESSEE. THE MATTER WOULD STAND ENTIRELY ON A DIFF ERENT FOOTING IN CASE THE ASSESSEE COLLECTED THE SERVICE TAX AND IT WAS NOT PAID TO THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT. THAT IS NOT THE CASE BEFOR E US. 32. WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE JUDGEME NT OF THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CHOWRANGHIE SALE S BUREAU PVT. LTD. (SUPRA). IN THE CASE BEFORE THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT, THE ASSESSEE COLLECTED THE SALES TAX ALONG WITH THE PRI CE OF THE GOODS AND CREDITED THE SAME IN SEPARATE SALES TAX ACCOUNT . SINCE THE AMOUNT WAS NOT PAID INTO THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT AND IT WAS CREDITED IN A SEPARATE ACCOUNT, IT WAS HELD THAT TH E SALES TAX FORMED PART OF THE TRADING RECEIPT. IN THE CASE BE FORE US IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE ASSESSEE COLLECTED THE SERVICE TAX AND KEPT THE SAME SEPARATELY. IT IS AN ADMITTE D FACT BY BOTH THE PARTIES THAT SERVICE TAX WAS REIMBURSED ON PROD UCTION OF ORIGINAL RECEIPT OF PAYMENT TO GOVERNMENT. THEREFOR E, THIS JUDGEMENT OF THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT HAS NO APPLICA TION TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. M/S LOUIS BERGER INTERNATIONAL INC. ========================= 32 33. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE JUDGEMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF SINCLAIR MURRAY & CO. PVT. LTD . (SUPRA). IN THE CASE BEFORE THE APEX COURT THE ASSESSEE SOLD JUTE AND CHARGED SALES TAX UNDER A SEPARATE HEAD IN THE BILL AS SALE S TAX. THE SALES TAX WAS NOT PAID TO GOVERNMENT. ON THOSE FACTS, IT WAS HELD THAT THE SALES TAX COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE WOULD FORM PART OF THE TRADING RECEIPT AND IT HAS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE TA XABLE INCOME IN CASE IT IS NOT PAID. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, WHAT W AS REIMBURSED IS THE SERVICE TAX PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE GOVERNM ENT ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, SUCH AN AMOUNT CANNOT FORM PART OF TECHN ICAL FEE. IN OTHER WORDS, IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS TRADING RECEIP T. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IN OUR OPINION, THE REIMBURSEMENT OF SERVICE TAX CANNOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 34. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS THE RATE OF TAX. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY GONE TH ROUGH THE PROVISIONS OF DTAA AND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11 5A OF THE ACT. THE CONTENTION OF THE DR IS THAT TAX HAS TO BE LEVI ED AT 20% U/S. 115A R/W ARTICLE 7 OF DTAA. AS OBSERVED BY THE CIT (A), FEE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS TECHNICAL SERVICES / CONSULTANCY WOULD FALL UNDER ARTICLE 12 AND NOT UNDER ARTICLE 7 . THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION, TAX HAS TO BE LEVIED ONLY AT 15% AND N OT AT 20%. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDE R OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY. ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS UPHELD. 35. THE NEXT GROUND ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IN ASS ESSMENT YEARS 1998-99, 1999-2000 AND 2000-01 IS LEVY OF TAX U/S. 234B OF THE ACT. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. AS RIGHTLY SUB MITTED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALL PAYMENTS WERE RECEIVED FROM THE GOVERNMENT OR ITS AGENCIES. ALL PAYMENTS WERE SUBJECTED TO DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE AS REQUIRED U/S. 195 OF THE ACT. THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF LAVELI N INTERNATIONAL INC. (SUPRA) AND KAISER ALUMINIUM TECHNICAL SERVICE S INC. (SUPRA) M/S LOUIS BERGER INTERNATIONAL INC. ========================= 33 EXAMINED THIS ISSUE AND HELD THAT THERE IS NO LIABI LITY TO PAY THE ADVANCE TAX WHEREVER THE TAX WAS DEDUCTED AT SOURCE . A SIMILAR VIEW WAS TAKEN BY SPECIAL BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN SUMIT BHATTACHARYA (2008) 112 ITD 1. THEREFORE, INTEREST WAS NOT CHARGEABLE U/S. 234B OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE AB OVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHOR ITY. THEREFORE, THE CONTENTION OF THE DR THAT INTEREST HAS TO BE LE VIED U/S. 234B HAS NO MERIT. ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS CANCELLED. 36. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE S TAND DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30TH JUNE, 20 10. SD/- (AKBER BASHA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- (N.R.S. GANESAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 30TH JUNE, 2010 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. THE DCIT, CIRCLE 16(1),/ THE ACIT, CIRCLE 16(1), ROOM NO. 312, 3RD FLOOR, AYAKAR BHAVAN, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERAB AD- 500 004 2. THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(2), 5TH FLOOR, AYAKAR BHAVAN, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD 500 004 3. M/S LOUIS BERGER INTERNATIONAL INC., 8-2-684/30, 2 ND FLOOR, BANJARA GREEN, ROAD NO.12, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD 4. CIT(A)-III, HYDERABAD. 5. CIT-II, HYDERABAD 6. THE D.R. B BENCH, ITAT, HYDERABAD. TPRAO