Karnavati Engineering Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) Circle-4, Ahmedabad

ITA 1400/AHD/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4612 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 08-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S N SOPARKAR
• Keywords: Capital asset; Business income; Revision of order; Double taxation relief; Services rendered outside India; Deemed to accrue or arise in india; Retrospective amendment; Permanent establishment; Advance ruling
• Section: 143(3); 139

Judgement Text

ITA NO.1400/AHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 PAGE 1 OF 27 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD D BENCH, AHMEDABAD [CORAM: PRAMOD KUMAR AM AND MAHAVIR PRASAD JM] ITA NO.: 1400/AHD/17 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 KARNAVATI ENGINEERING LTD., ..APPELLANT CADILA CORPORATE CAMPUS, SARKHEJ DHOLKA ROAD, BHAT, AHMEDABAD. [PAN: AAACK 6047 Q] VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD)-1, CIRCLE 4, AHMEDABAD. ..........RESPONDE NT APPEARANCES BY S N SOPARKAR FOR THE APPELLANT KEYUR PATEL FOR THE RESPONDENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : JULY 24 TH , 2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : OCTOBER 15 TH , 2018 O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR, AM: 1. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT HA S CHALLENGED CORRECTNESS OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)S ORDER DATED 24 TH MARCH 2017, IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. IN THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GRIEVANCE: 1. LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRM ING ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION OF RS.12,09,143/- IGNORING FACT THAT LIA BILITY FOR COMMISSION CRYSTALLISE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND APPELLANT COMPANY IS ALSO NOT LIABLE FOR DEDUCTION OF TAX U/S. 40(A)(I) OF THE ACT. LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED DISALLOWANCE AS LIABILITIES OF PAYM ENT CRYSTALIZE IN THE CURRENT YEAR AND APPELLANT COMPANY IS IN SAME RATE OF TAX FOR ALL THE YEARS. IT BE SO HELD NOW. 3. THE VERY FOUNDATION OF THIS DISALLOWANCE IS THAT , IN THE CONSIDERED VIEW OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, COMMISSION PAID FOR THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE NON-RESIDENT AGENTS IS TAXABLE IN INDIA. IT IS FOR THIS REASON THAT THE AS SESSEE IS HELD TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DEDUCTION ITA NO.1400/AHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 PAGE 2 OF 27 FOR TAX AT SOURCE FROM SUCH COMMISSION PAYMENTS TO THE NON-RESIDENTS, AND THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO VISITED WITH DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40(A)( IA) FOR ANY PAYMENTS MADE TO SUCH NON- RESIDENT AGENTS WITHOUT DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE. LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES, HOWEVER, FAIRLY AGREE, EVEN AS LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE DUTIFULLY RELIES UPON THE STAND OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, THAT THIS ISSUE IS NOW COVERED B Y A COORDINATE BENCH DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. WELSPUN CORPORATIO N LIMITED [(2017) 55 ITR (T) 405 (AHD)]. IN THE SAID DECISION, THE COORDINATE BENCH , SPEAKING THROUGH ONE OF US (I.E. THE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER), HAS, INTER ALIA, OBSERVED AS FO LLOWS: 22. SO FAR AS THE FIRST CATEGORY OF CASES ARE CONC ERNED, I.E. PAYMENTS TO THE RESIDENTS OF THE TAX JURISDICTIONS WITH WHICH INDIA N HAS TAX TREATIES BUT THESE TREATIES HAVE NO SPECIFIC ARTICLE DEALING WITH THE TAXABILIT Y OF 'FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES', ARE CONCERNED, IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT INDIA DOES NOT HAVE A COMPREHENSIVE DOUBLE TAXATION AGREEMENT WITH IRAN. THE INDIA IRAN DOUBLE TAXATION AVOIDANCE AGREEMENT [INDO IRANIAN TAX TREATY, IN SHORT; (1973) 91 ITR ( STAT) 31] IS A LIMITED AGREEMENT FOR AVOIDANCE OF DOUBLE TAXATION OF INCOME OF ENTERPRIS E OPERATING AIRCRAFT, AND ITS BENEFIT, THEREFORE, IS RESTRICTED TO THIS CATEGORY OF ENTERPRISE. GIVEN THIS FACT, NOTHING REALLY TURNS ON INDO IRANIAN TAX TREATY NOT HAVING A SPECIFIC PROVISION FOR TAXATION OF INCOME BY WAY OF FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES. ALL O THER INCOMES, EXCEPT FOR THE INCOME OF ENTERPRISE OPERATING AIRCRAFT, CONTINUE T O BE COVERED BY THE DOMESTIC TAXATION LAWS IN ENTIRETY. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATT ER, SO FAR AS PAYMENT OF RS 12,05,96,574 TO NJ-IRAN IS CONCERNED, WE WILL TAKE IT UP ALONGWITH THE CASES IN RESPECT OF WHICH ARE COVERED ONLY BY THE DOMESTIC LAW. THAT LEAVES US WITH THE CASES OF PAYMENT OF RS 1,06,251 TO A THAILAND BASED ENTITY G MS- THAILAND AND OF RS 35,73,878 TO AFRAS-UAE IN THIS CATEGORY. 23. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THERE IS NO SPECIFIC P ROVISION FOR TAXATION OF FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES IN INDIA THAILAND TAX TREATY AND INDIA UAE TAX TREATY. THERE IS ALSO NO DISPUTE THAT GMS-THAILAND AND AFRAS-UAE DID NOT HAVE ANY PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENTS IN INDIA. CLEARLY, THEREFORE, INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE RECIPIENTS OF THIS INCOME COULD NEITHER BE TAXED IN AS BUSINESS I NCOME OR UNDER THE HEAD FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES. 24. THE STAND OF THE REVENUE, HOWEVER, IS THAT THE INCOME EMBEDDED IN THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE COULD ANYWAY BE TAXED AS ' OTHER INCOME' UNDER THE RESPECTIVE TAX TREATIES. THERE IS A DECISION OF A COORDINATE B ENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL, IN THE CASE OF DY. CIT V. TVS ELECTRONICS LTD. [2012] 57 SOT 287/2 2 TAXMANN.COM 215 (CHENNAI), WHICH SUPPORT THIS SCHOOL OF THOUGHT AND HOLDS THAT 'ADMITTEDLY, CHAPTER III OF DTAA BETWEEN INDIA AND MAURITIUS DID NOT PROVIDE FO R TAXING ANY FEES PAID FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES. ONLY FOR A REASON THAT DTAA IS SILENT ON A PARTICULAR TYPE OF INCOME, WE CANNOT SAY THAT SUCH INCOME WILL AUTOMAT ICALLY BECOME BUSINESS INCOME OF THE RECIPIENT. IN OUR OPINION, WHEN DTAA IS SILE NT ON AN ASPECT, THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AND APPLIED. THIS SCHO OL OF THOUGHT DID NOT FIND FAVOUR WITH THE VERY JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF THIS COO RDINATE BENCH. IN THE CASE OF BANGKOK GLASS INDUSTRIES (P.) LTD. V. ASSTT. CIT [2 013] 215 TAXMAN 116 (MAG.)/34 TAXMANN.COM 77 (MAD.), HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT RE JECTED THIS SCHOOL OF THOUGHT AND DEALING WITH INDIA THAILAND TAX TREATY, WHICH D OES NOT HAVE FTS CLAUSE, REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE REVENUE THAT EVEN THOUGH THE THAI ENTITY DID NOT HAVE ANY PE IN INDIA ITA NO.1400/AHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 PAGE 3 OF 27 AND, FOR THAT REASON THIS AMOUNT COULD NOT HAVE TAX ED IN INDIA UNDER ARTICLE 7, FTS COULD BE TAXED AS 'OTHER INCOME' UNDER ARTICLE 22. THEIR LORDSHIPS, IN THIS CONTEXT, ALSO OBSERVED THAT, 'SINCE THE SAID INCOME DOES NOT FALL AS MISCELLANEOUS INCOME, THE SAME CANNOT BE BROUGHT UNDER ART. 22 AS WE DEAL WITH THI S ASPECT OF THE MATTER, AND TO EXPLAIN THE SAME PRINCIPLE IN LITTLE MORE DETAIL, L ET US FIRST TAKE A LOOK AT THE RELEVANT TREATY PROVISIONS. THE RELEVANT TREATY PROVISIONS A RE AS FOLLOWS: INDIA THAILAND TAX TREATY ARTICLE 22- OTHER INCOME ITEMS OF INCOME OF A RESIDENT OF A CONTRACTING STAT E, WHEREVER ARISING, NOT EXPRESSLY DEALT WITH IN THE FOREGOING ARTICLES MAY BE TAXED I N THAT STATE. SUCH ITEMS OF INCOME MAY ALSO BE TAXED IN THE CONTRACTING STATE WHERE TH E INCOME ARISES. INDIA UAE TAX TREATY ARTICLE 22- OTHER INCOME 1. SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF PARAGRAPH 2, ITEM S OF INCOME OF A RESIDENT OF A CONTRACTING STATE, WHEREVER ARISING, WHICH ARE NOT EXPRESSLY DEALT WITH IN THE FOREGOING ARTICLES OF THIS AGREEMENT, SHALL BE TAXA BLE ONLY IN THAT CONTRACTING STATE. 2. THE PROVISIONS OF PARAGRAPH 1 SHALL NOT APPLY TO INCOME, OTHER THAN INCOME FROM IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AS DEFINED IN PARAGR APH 2 OF ARTICLE 6, IF THE RECIPIENT OF SUCH INCOME, BEING A RESIDENT OF A CON TRACTING STATE, CARRIES ON BUSINESS IN THE OTHER CONTRACTING STATE THROUGH A PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT SITUATED THEREIN, OR PERFORMS IN THAT OTHER STATE INDEPENDENT PERSONAL S ERVICES FROM A FIXED BASE SITUATED THEREIN, AND THE RIGHT OR PROPERTY IN RESPECT OF WH ICH THE INCOME IS PAID IS EFFECTIVELY CONNECTED WITH SUCH PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT OR FIXE D BASE. IN SUCH CASE, THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 7 OR ARTICLE 14, AS THE CASE MAY BE, SHALL APPLY 25. TO UNDERSTAND THE SCOPE OF THESE TREATY PROVISI ONS, WHICH ARE BROADLY IN PARI MATERIA WITH THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 21 OF UN MOD EL CONVENTION, WE FIND GUIDANCE FROM THE OECD MODEL CONVENTION COMMENTARY WHICH STA TES THAT 'THE ARTICLE COVERS INCOME OF A CLASS NOT EXPRESSLY DEALT WITH I N THE PRECEDING ARTICLES (E.G. AN ALIMONY OR A LOTTERY INCOME) AS WELL AS INCOME FROM SOURCES NOT EXPRESSLY REFERRED TO THEREIN (E.G. A RENT PAID BY A RESIDENT OF A CONTRA CTING STATE FOR THE USE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY SITUATED IN A THIRD STATE). THE ARTICLE CO VERS INCOME ARISING IN THIRD STATES AS WELL AS INCOME FROM A CONTRACTING STATE' IN OTHER W ORDS, AN INCOME IS OF SUCH A NATURE AS, ON SATISFACTION OF CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN THE RELATED PROVISION, COULD BE TAXED UNDER ANY OF THESE SPECIFIC TREATY PROVISIONS , CANNOT BE COVERED BY THIS RESIDUARY CLAUSE. TAKE FOR EXAMPLE, INCOME EARNED B Y A RESIDENT OF A CONTRACTING STATE BY CARRYING ON BUSINESS IN THE OTHER CONTRACTING ST ATE. WHEN, FOR EXAMPLE, ARTICLE 5 PROVIDES THAT THE INCOME OF RESIDENT OF A CONTRACTI NG STATE, FROM CARRYING ON BUSINESS IN THE OTHER CONTRACTING STATE, CANNOT BE TAXED IN THE SOURCE STATE UNLESS SUCH A RESIDENT HAS A PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT IN THE OTHER CONTRACT ING STATE, I.E. SOURCE STATE, IT CANNOT BE OPEN TO THE TAX ADMINISTRATION OF SOURCE STATE T O CONTEND THAT EVEN IF IT CANNOT BE TAXED AS BUSINESS INCOME, IT CAN BE TAXED AS 'OTHER INCOME' NEVERTHELESS. IT IS ITA NO.1400/AHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 PAGE 4 OF 27 IMPORTANT TO BEAR IN MIND THE IMPORT OF EXPRESSION 'NOT EXPRESSLY DEALT WITH IN THE FOREGOING ARTICLES'. SIMILARLY, IF INDEPENDENT PERS ONAL SERVICES CANNOT BE TAXED IN THE SOURCE STATE AS MINIMUM THRESHOLD LIMIT OF FIXED BA SE IS NOT SATISFIED, SUCH A TREATY CONCESSION CANNOT BE NULLIFIED BY INVOKING ARTICLE 21. WHEN A PARTICULAR NATURE OF INCOME IS DEALT WITH IN THE TREATY PROVISIONS, AND ITS TAXABILITY FAILS BECAUSE OF THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO SUCH TAXABILITY AND AS SPEC IFIED IN THAT PROVISION ARE NOT SATISFIED, THAT IS THE END OF THE ROAD FOR TAXABILI TY IN THE SOURCE STATE. 26. IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO BEAR IN MIND THE FACT T HAT ARTICLE 21 STATES THAT IT APPLIES TO THE 'ITEMS OF INCOME OF A RESIDENT OF A CONTRACTING STATE, WHEREVER ARISING, WHICH ARE NOT EXPRESSLY DEALT WITH IN THE FOREGOING ARTICLES OF THIS AGREEMENT'. THEREFORE, IT IS NOT THE FACT OF NON-TAXABILITY UNDER THE OPERATIVE ARTICLES (I.E. ARTICLES 6 TO 20) WHICH LEADS TO TAXABILITY UNDER RESIDUARY CLAUSE IN ARTIC LE 22, BUT THE FACT OF INCOME OF THAT NATURE BEING COVERED BY THOSE ARTICLES WHICH CAN LE AD TO TAXABILITY UNDER ARTICLE 22. THERE COULD BE MANY SUCH ITEMS OF INCOME WHICH ARE NOT COVERED BY THESE SPECIFIC TREATY PROVISIONS, SUCH AS ALIMONY, LOTTERY INCOME, GAMBLING INCOME, RENT PAID BY RESIDENT OF A CONTRACTING STATE FOR THE USE OF AN I MMOVEABLE PROPERTY IN A THIRD STATE, AND DAMAGES (OTHER THAN FOR LOSS OF INCOME COVERED BY SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY) ETC. THIS IS HOW UN MODEL CONVENTION COMMEN TARY, WHICH IS REFERRED TO EARLIER IN THIS ORDER, ALSO EXPLAINS THE SCOPE OF T HIS ARTICLE. IN OUR HUMBLE UNDERSTANDING, THEREFORE, ARTICLE 21 DOES NOT APPLY TO ITEMS OF INCOME WHICH CAN BE TAXED IN ANY SITUATIONS UNDER ARTICLES 6-20 WHETHER OR NOT SUCH AN INCOME IS ACTUALLY TAXABLE UNDER THESE ARTICLES. 27. THE QUESTION THEN ARISES WHETHER INCOME EARNED BY THE RECIPIENTS IN QUESTION, I.E. AFRAS UAE AND GMS THAILAND, CAN BE SAID TO IN THE N ATURE OF AN INCOME WHICH IS NOT EXPRESSLY DEALT WITH BY OTHER OPERATIVE ARTICLES (I .E. ARTICLE 6 TO 20) OF THE TREATY. THE INCOME EARNED BY THESE ENTITIES WAS IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF THEIR BUSINESS, AND THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THIS FUNDAMENTAL ASPECT. THERE CANNOT ALSO BE DISPUTE ABOUT THE FACT THAT IN THE EVENT OF THESE ENTITIES SATISFYING THE CONDITIONS REGARDING EXISTENCE OF PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT IN INDIA, THE AMOUNTS SO RE CEIVED BY THESE ENTITIES WOULD HAVE BEEN TAXABLE AS BUSINESS INCOME. THE INCOME IN QUESTION IS THUS CLEARLY DEALT WITH BY ARTICLE 7 READ WITH ARTICLE 5 AND THE REASO N WHY IT HAS NOT BEEN TAXED IS THAT THE ENTITIES CONCERNED DID NOT HAVE PERMANENT ESTAB LISHMENTS IN INDIA. 28. AS WE HOLD SO, WE ARE ALIVE TO THE FACT THAT TH ERE IS NO SPECIFIC TAXABILITY PROVISION, UNDER INDIA THAILAND TAX TREATY OR, FOR THAT PURPOS E, UNDER INDIA UAE TAX TREATY, WITH RESPECT TO TAXABILITY OF FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICE S. PROFITS EARNED BY RENDERING FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES ARE ONLY A SPECIES OF BUSINESS P ROFITS JUST AS THE PROFITS ANY OTHER ECONOMIC ACTIVITY. HOWEVER, WITHOUT THE CHARACTER O F SUCH RECEIPTS IN THE NATURE OF BUSINESS RECEIPTS BEING ALTERED, THE FEE FOR TECHNI CAL SERVICES IS DEALT WITH SEPARATELY IN SOME TREATIES FOR THE REASON BECAUSE, UNDER THOSE T REATIES THE RELATED CONTRACTING STATES PROCEED ON THE BASIS THAT EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF TH E PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT OR FIXED BASE REQUIREMENTS, THE RECEIPTS OF THIS NATURE CAN BE TAXED, ON GROSS BASIS, AT THE AGREED TAX RATE, AND, TO THAT EXTENT, SUCH RECEIPTS DOES NOT FALL IN LINE WITH THE SCHEME OF TAXATION OF BUSINESS PROFITS UNDER ART. 7 AND PR OFESSIONAL INCOME UNDER 14. IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT THE MOMENT THE THRESHOLD L IMITS FOR PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT OR FIXED BASE, AS THE CASE MAY BE, IS SATISFIED, TH E TAXABILITY SHIFTS ON NET BASIS AS ITA NO.1400/AHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 PAGE 5 OF 27 BUSINESS PROFITS OR PROFESSIONAL (INDEPENDENT PERSO NAL SERVICES) INCOME. THE BUSINESS RECEIPTS OR PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS THUS CANNOT BE SE EN IN ISOLATION WITH THE FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES. ITS ONLY THE FACT OF, AND MODE OF, TAXATION IN THE ABSENCE OF PE OR FIXED BASE, WHICH GETS AFFECTED AS A RESULT OF THE FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES. WHEN THERE IS AN FTS CLAUSE, THE FTS GETS TAXED EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF THE PE OR THE FIXED BASE, BUT THE CHARACTER OF FTS RECEIPT IS THE SAME, I.E. BUSINESS INCOME OR PROFESSIONAL (INDEPENDENT PERSONAL) INCOME, IN THE HANDS OF THE SAME. WHEN THERE IS NO FTS CLAUSE, THIS SUB CATEGORIZATION OF INCOME BECOMES I RRELEVANT, BECAUSE FTS OR ANY OTHER BUSINESS RECEIPT, THE INCOME EMBEDDED IN SUCH RECEIPTS GETS TAXED ONLY IF THERE IS A PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT OR FIXED BASE- AS THE CASE MAY BE. THE SCOPE OF BUSINESS PROFIT AND INDEPENDENT PERSONAL SERVICE COMPLETELY COVERS THE FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES AS WELL. WITH FTS ARTICLE OR WITHOUT FTS A RTICLE, THE INCOME BY WAY OF FEES OF TECHNICAL SERVICES CONTINUES TO BE DEALT WITH TH E PROVISIONS OF ARTICLES RELATING TO BUSINESS PROFITS, INDEPENDENT PERSONAL SERVICES, AN D ADDITIONALLY, IN THE EVENT OF EXISTENCE OF AN FTS ARTICLE, WITH THE ARTICLE RELAT ING TO THE FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES. 29. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, IN OUR CONSID ERED VIEW, EVEN IF THE RECEIPTS IN QUESTION ARE IN THE NATURE OF FEES FOR TECHNICAL SE RVICES IN THE HANDS OF AFRAS UAE AND GMS THAILAND, THESE RECEIPTS ARE NOT TAXABLE IN THE HANDS OF THESE ENTITIES, IN TERMS OF THE RESPECTIVE TAX TREATIES, IN INDIA. IT IS ONLY E LEMENTARY THAT UNDER ARTICLE 90(2) WHERE THE GOVERNMENT HAS ENTERED INTO A TAX TREATY WITH A NY TAX JURISDICTION, IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSEE TO WHOM SUCH TREATY APPLIES, 'THE PROV ISIONS OF THIS (INCOME TAX) ACT SHALL APPLY TO THE EXTENT THEY ARE MORE BENEFICIAL TO THAT ASSESSEE'. QUITE CLEARLY, WHEN THERE IS NO TAXABILITY UNDER THE RESPECTIVE TR EATY PROVISIONS, THERE CANNOT BE ANY TAXABILITY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX A CT EITHER. 30. AS REGARDS THE REMAINING CASES, IN CATEGORY (B) AND IN CATEGORY (C) AS ALSO IN THE CASE OF JT-IRAN, THE PROVISIONS OF THE TAX TREATIES DONOT COME TO THE RESCUE OF THE RECIPIENTS, AND, THEREFORE, THE TAXABILITY IN THESE CASES IS TO BE DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF THE PROVISIONS IN THE DOMESTIC LAW. 31. THE SCHEME OF TAXABILITY IN INDIA, SO FAR AS TH E NON-RESIDENTS, ARE CONCERNED, IS LIKE THIS. SECTION 5 (2), WHICH DEALS WITH THE TAXA BILITY OF INCOME IN THE HANDS OF A NON-RESIDENT, PROVIDES THAT 'THE TOTAL INCOME OF AN Y PREVIOUS YEAR OF A PERSON WHO IS A NON-RESIDENT INCLUDES ALL INCOME FROM WHATEVER SOUR CE DERIVED WHICH (A) IS RECEIVED OR IS DEEMED TO BE RECEIVED IN INDIA IN SU CH YEAR BY OR ON BEHALF OF SUCH PERSON; OR (B) ACCRUES OR ARISES OR IS DEEMED TO AC CRUE OR ARISE TO HIM IN INDIA DURING SUCH YEAR'. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT SINCE NO PART OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE RECIPIENT NON-RESIDENTS IS CARRIED OUT IN INDIA, NO INCOME AC CRUES TO THESE NON-RESIDENTS IN INDIA. THE CASE OF THE REVENUE HINGES ON INCOME WHI CH IS 'DEEMED TO ACCRUE OR ARISE IN INDIA'. COMING TO THE DEEMING PROVISIONS, WHICH ARE SET OUT IN SECTION 9, WE FIND THAT THE FOLLOWING STATUTORY PROVISIONS ARE RELEVAN T IN THIS CONTEXT: 'SECTION 9- INCOMES DEEMED TO ACCRUE OR ARISE IN IN DIA (1) THE FOLLOWING INCOMES WILL BE DEEMED TO ACCRUE OR ARISE IN INDIA: ITA NO.1400/AHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 PAGE 6 OF 27 (I) ALL INCOME ACCRUING OR ARISING, WHETHER DIRECTL Y OR INDIRECTLY, THROUGH OR FROM ANY BUSINESS CONNECTION IN INDIA, OR THROUGH OR FROM AN Y PROPERTY IN INDIA, OR THROUGH OR FROM ANY ASSET OR SOURCE OF INCOME IN INDIA, EXPLANATION: FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS CLAUSE [I.E. 9 (1)(I)], (A) IN THE CASE OF A BUSINESS OF WHICH ALL THE OPER ATIONS ARE NOT CARRIED OUT IN INDIA, THE INCOME OF THE BUSINESS DEEMED UNDER THIS CLAUSE TO ACCRUE OR ARISE IN INDIA SHALL BE ONLY SUCH PART OF THE INCOME AS IS REASONABLY ATTRI BUTABLE TO THE OPERATIONS CARRIED OUT IN INDIA; (B) (C) (D)** ** **' (VII) INCOME BY WAY OF FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES PAYABLE BY- (A)** ** **' (B) A PERSON WHO IS A RESIDENT, EXCEPT WHERE THE FE ES ARE PAYABLE IN RESPECT OF SERVICES UTILISED IN A BUSINESS OR PROFESSION CARRIED ON BY SUCH PERSON OUTSIDE INDIA OR FOR THE PURPOSES OF MAKING OR EARNING ANY INCOME FROM ANY S OURCE OUTSIDE INDIA; OR (C)** ** **' EXPLANATION 1-.* EXPLANATION 2.- FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CLAUSE, 'F EES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES' MEANS ANY CONSIDERATION (INCLUDING ANY LUMP SUM CONSIDERA TION) FOR THE RENDERING OF ANY MANAGERIAL, TECHNICAL OR CONSULTANCY SERVICES (INCL UDING THE PROVISION OF SERVICES OF TECHNICAL OR OTHER PERSONNEL) BUT DOES NOT INCLUDE CONSIDERATION FOR ANY CONSTRUCTION, ASSEMBLY, MINING OR LIKE PROJECT UNDERTAKEN BY THE RECIPIENT OR CONSIDERATION WHICH WOULD BE INCOME OF THE RECIPIENT CHARGEABLE UNDER T HE HEAD' SALARIES'.' * NOT RELEVANT FOR OUR PURPOSES 32. SO FAR AS DEEMING FICTION UNDER SECTION 9(1)(I) IS CONCERNED, IT CANNOT BE INVOKED IN THE PRESENT CASE SINCE NO PART OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE RECIPIENT'S BUSINESS, AS COMMISSION AGENT, WAS CARRIED OUT IN INDIA. EVEN TH OUGH DEEMING FICTION UNDER SECTION 9(1)(I) IS TRIGGERED ON THE FACTS OF THIS C ASE, ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION AGENT'S BUSINESS CONNECTION IN INDIA, IT HAS NO IMPACT ON T AXABILITY IN THE HANDS OF COMMISSION AGENT BECAUSE ADMITTEDLY NO BUSINESS OPE RATIONS WERE CARRIED OUT IN INDIA, AND, THEREFORE, EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 9(1 )(I) COMES INTO PLAY. 33. THERE ARE A COUPLE OF RULINGS BY THE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, WHICH SUPPORT TAXABILITY OF COMMISSION PAID TO NON-RESIDENTS UNDE R SECTION 9(1)(I), BUT, NEITHER THESE RULINGS ARE BINDING PRECEDENTS FOR US NOR ARE WE PE RSUADED BY THE LINE OF REASONING ADOPTED IN THESE RULINGS. AS FOR THE AAR RULING IN THE CASE OF SKF BOILERS & DRIERS (P.) LTD. IN RE [2012] 343 ITR 385/206 TAXMAN 19/18 TAXMANN.COM 325 (AAR - NEW DELHI), WE FIND THAT THIS DECISION MERELY FOLLOWS T HE EARLIER RULING IN THE CASE OF RAJIV MALHOTRA, IN RE [2006] 284 ITR 564/155 TAXMAN 101 ( AAR - NEW DELHI) WHICH, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, DOES NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE IMPACT OF EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 9(1)(I) PROPERLY. THAT WAS A CASE IN WHICH THE NON-RESIDENT COMMISSION AGENT ITA NO.1400/AHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 PAGE 7 OF 27 WORKED FOR PROCURING PARTICIPATION BY OTHER NON-RES IDENT ENTITIES IN A FOOD AND WINE SHOW IN INDIA, AND THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TH AT SINCE THE AGENT HAS NOT CARRIED OUT ANY BUSINESS OPERATIONS IN INDIA, THE COMMISSIO N AGENT WAS NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN INDIA, AND, ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE HAD NO OBL IGATION TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE FROM SUCH COMMISSION PAYMENTS TO THE NON-RESIDENT AGENT. ON THESE FACTS, THE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, INTER ALIA, OPINED THAT 'NO DOUBT T HE AGENT RENDERS SERVICES ABROAD AND PURSUES AND SOLICITS EXHIBITORS THERE IN THE TE RRITORY ALLOTTED TO HIM, BUT THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE THE COMMISSION ARISES IN INDIA ONLY WHEN EX HIBITOR PARTICIPATES IN THE INDIA INTERNATIONAL FOOD & WINE SHOW (TO BE HELD IN INDIA ), AND MAKES FULL AND FINAL PAYMENT TO THE APPLICANT IN INDIA' AND THAT 'THE CO MMISSION INCOME WOULD, THEREFORE, BE TAXABLE UNDER SECTION 5(2)(B) READ WITH SECTION 9(1)(I) OF THE ACT'. THE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING ALSO HELD THAT 'THE FACT THAT TH E AGENT RENDERS SERVICES ABROAD IN THE FORM OF PURSUING AND SOLICITING PARTICIPANTS AN D THAT THE COMMISSION IS REMITTED TO HIM ABROAD ARE WHOLLY IRRELEVANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING SITUS OF HIS INCOME'. WE DO NOT CONSIDER THIS APPROACH TO BE CORRECT. WHE N NO OPERATIONS OF THE BUSINESS OF COMMISSION AGENT IS CARRIED ON IN INDIA, THE EXPLAN ATION 1 TO SECTION 9(1)(I) TAKES THE ENTIRE COMMISSION INCOME FROM OUTSIDE THE AMBIT OF DEEMING FICTION UNDER SECTION 9(1)(I), AND, IN EFFECT, OUTSIDE THE AMBIT OF INCOM E 'DEEMED TO ACCRUE OR ARISE IN INDIA' FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 5(2)(B). THE POINT OF TI ME WHEN COMMISSION AGENT'S RIGHT TO RECEIVE THE COMMISSION FRUCTIFIES IS IRRELEVANT TO DECIDE THE SCOPE OF EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 9(1 )(I), WHICH IS WHAT IS MATERIAL IN THE CONTEXT OF THE SITUATION THAT WE ARE IN SEISIN OF. THE REVENUE'S CASE BEFORE US HINGES ON T HE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 9(1)(I) AND, IT IS, THEREFORE. IMPORTANT TO ASCERTAIN AS TO WHAT EXTENT WOULD THE RIGOUR OF SECTION 9(1)(I) BE RELAXED BY EXPLANATION 1 TO SECT ION 9(1)(I). WHEN WE EXAMINE THINGS FROM THIS PERSPECTIVE, THE INEVITABLE CONCLU SION IS THAT SINCE NO PART OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE BUSINESS OF THE COMMISSION AGENT IS CARRIED OUT IN INDIA, NO PART OF THE INCOME OF THE COMMISSION AGENT CAN BE BROUGHT T O TAX IN INDIA. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, VIEWS EXPRESSED BY THE HON'BLE AAR, WHICH D O NOT FETTER OUR INDEPENDENT OPINION ANYWAY IN VIEW OF ITS LIMITED BINDING FORCE UNDER S. 245S OF THE ACT, DO NOT IMPRESS US, AND WE DECLINE TO BE GUIDED BY THE SAME . THE STAND OF THE REVENUE, HOWEVER, IS THAT THESE RULINGS, BEING FROM SUCH A H IGH QUASI-JUDICIAL FORUM, EVEN IF NOT BINDING, CANNOT SIMPLY BE BRUSHED ASIDE EITHER, AND THAT THESE RULINGS AT LEAST HAVE PERSUASIVE VALUE. WE HAVE NO QUARREL WITH THIS PROP OSITION. WE HAVE, WITH UTMOST CARE AND DEEPEST RESPECT, PERUSED THE ABOVE RULINGS RENDERED BY THE HON'BLE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING. WITH GREATEST RESPECT, BUT WITH OUT SLIGHTEST HESITATION, WE HUMBLY COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT WE ARE NOT PERSU ADED BY THESE RULINGS. 34. COMING TO SECTION 9(1)(VII)(B), THIS DEEMING FI CTION- WHICH IS FOUNDATIONAL BASIS FOR THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, INTER ALIA , PROVIDES THAT THE INCOME BY WAY OF TECHNICAL SERVICES PAYABLE BY A PERSON RESIDENT IN INDIA, EXCEPT IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS- WHICH ARE NOT ATTRACTED IN THE PRESENT CASE ANYWAY, ARE DEEMED TO BE INCOME ACCRUING OR ARISING IN INDIA. EXPLANATION 2 TO SECTION 9(1)( VII) DEFINES 'FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES' AS ANY CONSIDERATION (INCLUDING ANY LUMPS UM CONSIDERATION) FOR THE RENDERING OF ANY MANAGERIAL, TECHNICAL OR CONSULTAN CY SERVICES (INCLUDING THE PROVISIONS OF SERVICES OF TECHNICAL OR OTHER PERSON NEL) BUT DOES NOT INCLUDE CONSIDERATION FOR ANY CONSTRUCTION, ASSEMBLY, MININ G OR LIKE PROJECT UNDERTAKEN BY THE RECIPIENT OR CONSIDERATION WHICH WOULD BE INCOME OF THE RECIPIENT CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD 'SALARIES' [RELEVANT PORTION HIGHLIGHTED B Y UNDERLINING]'. ITA NO.1400/AHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 PAGE 8 OF 27 35. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE LEGAL POSITION, WHAT WE NEED TO DECIDE AT THE OUTSET IS WHETHER THE AMOUNTS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE NON -RESIDENT AGENTS COULD BE TERMED AS 'CONSIDERATION FOR THE RENDERING OF ANY MANAGERI AL, TECHNICAL AND CONSULTANCY SERVICES'. AS WE DO SO, IT IS USEFUL TO BEAR IN MIN D THE FACT THAT EVEN GOING BY THE STAND OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AT BEST SERVICES RE NDERED BY THE NON-RESIDENT TO THE AGENT INCLUDED TECHNICAL SERVICES BUT IT IS FOR THI S REASON THAT THE AMOUNTS PAID TO THESE AGENTS, ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION ON EXPORTS, SHOULD BE TREATED AS FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES. EVEN PROCEEDING ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT TH ESE NON-RESIDENT AGENTS DID RENDER THE TECHNICAL SERVICES, WHICH, AS WE WILL SEE A LIT TLE LATER, AN INCORRECT ASSUMPTION ANYWAY, WHAT IS IMPORTANT TO APPRECIATE IS THAT THE AMOUNTS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO THESE AGENTS CONSTITUTED CONSIDERATION FOR THE ORDE RS SECURED BY THE AGENTS AND NOT THE SERVICES ALLEGED RENDERED BY THE AGENTS. THE EVENT TRIGGERING CRYSTALLIZATION OF LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE, UNDER THE COMMISSION AGE NCY AGREEMENT, IS THE EVENT OF SECURING ORDERS AND NOT THE RENDITION OF ALLEGED TE CHNICAL SERVICES. IN A SITUATION IN WHICH THE AGENT DOES NOT RENDER ANY OF THE SERVICES BUT SECURES THE BUSINESS ANYWAY, THE AGENT IS ENTITLED TO HIS COMMISSION WHICH IS CO MPUTED IN TERMS OF A PERCENTAGE OF THE VALUE OF THE ORDER. IN A REVERSE SITUATION, IN WHICH AN AGENT RENDERS ALL THE ALLEGED TECHNICAL SERVICES BUT DOES NOT SECURE ANY ORDER FO R THE PRINCIPAL I.E. THE ASSESSEE, THE AGENT IS NOT ENTITLED TO ANY COMMISSION. CLEARLY, T HEREFORE, THE EVENT TRIGGERING THE EARNINGS BY THE AGENT IS SECURING THE BUSINESS AND NOT RENDITION OF ANY SERVICES. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE AMO UNTS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO ITS NON-RESIDENT AGENTS, EVEN IN THE EVENT OF HOLDING T HAT THE AGENTS DID INDEED RENDER TECHNICAL SERVICES, CANNOT BE SAID TO BE CONSIDERAT ION FOR RENDERING OF ANY MANAGERIAL, TECHNICAL OR CONSULTANCY SERVICES (EMPHASIS BY UNDE RLINING SUPPLIED BY US)'. THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE AGENTS, EVEN IF THESE SERV ICES ARE HELD TO BE IN THE NATURE OF TECHNICAL SERVICES, MAY BE TECHNICAL SERVICES, BUT THE AMOUNTS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT FOR THE RENDITION OF THESE TECHNICAL SERVICES N OR THE QUANTIFICATION OF THESE AMOUNTS HAVE ANY RELATION WITH THE QUANTUM OF THESE TECHNICAL SERVICES. THE KEY TO TAXABILITY OF AN AMOUNT UNDER SECTION 9(1)(VII) IS THAT IT SHOULD CONSTITUTE 'CONSIDERATION' FOR RENDITION OF TECHNICAL SERVICES . THE CASE OF THE REVENUE FAILS ON THIS SHORT TEST, AS IN THE PRESENT CASE THE AMOUNTS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE ARE 'CONSIDERATION' FOR ORDERS SECURED BY THE ASSESSEE IRRESPECTIVE OF HOW AND WHETHER OR NOT THE AGENTS HAVE PERFORMED THE SO CALLED TECHNIC AL SERVICES. 36. LET US SUM UP OUR DISCUSSIONS ON THIS PART OF T HE SCHEME OF SECTION 9, SO FAR AS TAX IMPLICATIONS ON COMMISSION AGENCY BUSINESS CARRIED OUT BY NON-RESIDENTS FOR INDIAN PRINCIPALS IS CONCERNED. IT DOES NOT NEED MUCH OF A CEREBRAL EXERCISE TO FIND OUT WHETHER THE INCOME FROM THE BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY A NON-RESIDENT ASSESSEE, AS A COMMISSION AGENT AND TO THE EXTENT IT CAN BE SAID T O DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY ACCRUING THROUGH OR FROM ANY BUSINESS CONNECTION IN INDIA, I S REQUIRED TO BE TAXED UNDER SECTION 9(1)(I) OR UNDER SECTION 9(1)(VII), OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE ANSWER IS OBVIOUS. DEEMING FICTION UNDER SECTION 9(1)(I) READ WITH PROVISO THERETO, AS WE HAVE SEEN IN THE EARLIER DISCUSSIONS, HOLDS THE KEY, AND LAYS DOWN THAT ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT WHICH THE OPERATIONS OF SUCH A BUSINESS IS CAR RIED OUT IN INDIA, THE INCOME FROM SUCH A BUSINESS IS TAXABLE IN INDIA. WHEN NO OPERAT IONS OF THE BUSINESS ARE CARRIED ON INDIA, THERE IS NO TAXABILITY OF THE PROFITS OF SUC H A BUSINESS IN INDIA EITHER. THE QUESTION THEN ARISES WHETHER IN A SITUATION IN WHIC H, IN THE COURSE OF CARRYING ON SUCH BUSINESS, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO NECESSARILY RENDER CE RTAIN SERVICES, WHICH ARE OF SUCH A ITA NO.1400/AHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 PAGE 9 OF 27 NATURE AS COVERED BY EXPLANATION 2 TO SECTION 9(1)( VII), AND EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE IS NOT PAID ANY FEES FOR SUCH SERVICES PER SE, ANY PART OF THE BUSINESS PROFITS OF THE ASSESSEE CAN BE TREATED AS 'FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERV ICES' AND TAXED AS SUCH UNDER SECTION 9(1)(VII). THIS QUESTION DOES NOT POSE MUCH DIFFICU LTY EITHER. IN THE LIGHT OF THE DISCUSSIONS IN THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPH, UNLESS THER E IS A SPECIFIC AND IDENTIFIABLE CONSIDERATION FOR THE RENDITION OF TECHNICAL SERVIC ES, TAXABILITY UNDER SECTION 9(1)(VII) DOES NOT GET TRIGGERED. THEREFORE, IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER ANY TECHNICAL SERVICES ARE RENDERED DURING THE COURSE OF CARRYING ON SUCH AGEN CY COMMISSION BUSINESS ON BEHALF OF INDIAN PRINCIPAL, THE CONSIDERATION FOR SECURING BUSINESS CANNOT BE TAXED UNDER SECTION 9(1)(VII) AT ALL. THIS PROFITS OF SUCH A BU SINESS CAN HAVE TAXABILITY IN INDIA ONLY TO THE EXTENT SUCH PROFITS RELATE TO THE BUSINESS O PERATIONS IN INDIA, BUT THEN, AS ARE THE ADMITTED FACTS OF THIS CASE, NO PART OF OPERATIONS OF BUSINESS WERE CARRIED OUT IN INDIA. THE COMMISSION AGENTS EMPLOYED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE REFORE, DID NOT HAVE ANY TAX LIABILITY IN INDIA IN RESPECT OF THE COMMISSION AGE NCY BUSINESS SO CARRIED OUT. 37. ON A MORE FUNDAMENTAL NOTE, HOWEVER, IT IS ALSO A SETTLED LEGAL POSITION BY NOW THAT THE SERVICES OF THE NATURE RENDERED BY THESE C OMMISSION AGENTS CANNOT ANYWAY BE TREATED AS FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES ANYWAY. VIEW ED THUS, EVEN THE DISCUSSION ON WHETHER THE AMOUNTS IN QUESTION COULD BE TREATED AS 'CONSIDERATION' FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES, MAY BE RENDERED ACADEMIC IN EFFECT. LEARN ED CIT(A) HAS VERY WELL SUMMARIZED THE JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS IN SUPPORT OF TH IS LINE OF REASONING, AND, IN AN ERUDITE AND EXTENDED DISCUSSION, DEALT WITH EACH LI MB OF THE DEFINITION OF TECHNICAL SERVICES. THESE FINDINGS ARE REPRODUCED BY US EARLI ER IN THIS ORDER. WHILE, FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY, WE NEED TO REPEAT EACH OF THESE REASONS ANALYSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A), SUFFICE TO SAY THAT WE APPROVE HIS WELL-REASONED FI NDINGS AND LINE OF REASONING, AND WE WILL ALSO BRIEFLY TOUCH UPON THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER. BEFORE WE DO SO, WE MAY TAKE NOTE OF SOME OF THE CLAUSES IN A TYPICAL COMMI SSION AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE WITH ITS COMMISSION AGENTS. THE KEY PR OVISIONS IN THIS AGREEMENT, A COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED BEFORE US AT PAGES 103 TO 109 OF THE PAPER-BOOK, ARE AS FOLLOWS: ARTICLE 5 - AGENT'S OBLIGATION THE AGENT SHALL CARRY OUT ALL THE DUTIES NORMALLY R ENDERED BY AN AGENT INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING: 5.1 TO ACT EXCLUSIVELY ON BEHALF OF THE PRINCIPAL A ND NOT SOURCE, PROCURE OR MARKET PRODUCTS OF SIMILAR TYPE MANUFACTURED BY COMPETITIV E COMPANIES WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE PRINCIPAL. 5.2 TO USE ITS BEST ENDEAVORS AND FACILITIES TO DEV ELOP, EXPAND AND PROMOTE DILIGENTLY, THE SALE AND THE MARKET FOR THE PRODUCTS. THE AGENT WILL BE RESPONSIBLE OF MAKING THE NECESSARY MARKET PLANS AND ESTABLISH THE MARKETING NETWORK OF REPRESENTATIVES TO HELP PROMOTE WELSPUN PRODUCTS . 5.3 TO PROVIDE THE PRINCIPAL WITH INFORMATION SUCH AS MARKER DEVELOPMENTS, ACTIVITIES OF COMPETITORS, INTENTIONS AND PLANS OF CLIENTS TO THE MAXIMUM OF HIS KNOWLEDGE. ITA NO.1400/AHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 PAGE 10 OF 27 5.4 ENDEAVOR TO PROVIDE THE PRINCIPAL PROMPT ADVANC E INFORMATION REGARDING TENDERS. TO FORWARD TO THE PRINCIPAL TENDER DOCUMEN TS, INQUIRIES ETC, WITH FULL TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS WELL AHEAD - AS MUCH AS HE CAN - OF TENDER CLOSING. 5.5 THE AGENT ON BEHALF OF THE PRINCIPAL, WILL PURC HASE TENDER DOCUMENTS AND FORWARD THE SAME TO THE PRINCIPAL WELL AHEAD - AS M UCH AS HE CAN - OF TENDER CLOSING. THE COST OF PURCHASE OF SUCH TENDER DOCUME NTS SHALL BE REIMBURSED BY THE PRINCIPAL TO THE AGENT. 5.6 TO ASSIST FOR CLAIMS AND COMPLAINTS (IF SAY) TH AT MAY ARISE FROM THIRD PARTIES AND HELP TO REACH APPROPRIATE SETTLEMENT IN CLOSE CO-OR DINATION WITH THE PRINCIPAL. 5.7 THE AGENT WILL NOT ENTER INTO AGREEMENTS OR CON TRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS &. CREATE ANY FINANCIAL LIABILITIES ON BEHALF OF THE PRINCIPA L, WITHOUT THE PRINCIPAL'S PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT. 5.8 THE AGENT HEREBY NOMINATES MR. HOSSAM KAWASH AS THEIR CONTACT POINT WHO WILL BE TOTALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PRINCIPAL'S BUS INESS FOR CLARITY OF COMMUNICATION & EXPEDITIOUS ACTION. 5.9 TO ASSIST THE PRINCIPAL IN ALL POSSIBLE WAY, AS AND WHEN REQUESTED BY THE PRINCIPAL FOR THE FULFILLMENT OF ITS OBLIGATIONS, I N CASE OF A CONTRACT WITHIN THE TERRITORY. IT INCLUDES ASSISTING THE PRINCIPAL IN I DENTIFYING SUBCONTRACTORS LIKE LOGISTICS, SHIPPERS, CARGO HANDLING AGENCIES FOR SM OOTH EXECUTION OF SUCH CONTRACTS. 5.9A TO SEND THE PRINCIPAL PERIODIC REPORTS ON BUSI NESS ACTIVITY. 5.9B TO KEEP THE PRINCIPAL CONTINUOUSLY APPRISES OF ALL RELEVANT POLITICAL/ ECONOMIC CHANGES WHICH WOULD AFFECT TIE BUSINESS, 5.9C TO UNDERTAKE NOT TO DIVULGE SALES DOCUMENTS, C ATALOGUES, PRICES ETC. TO COMPETITORS AND THEIR AGENTS AND ASSOCIATES. ARTICLE 7 PRINCIPAL'S OBLIGATIONS DURING THE CONTINUANCE OF THIS AGREEMENT THE PRINCI PAL AGREES : 7.1 TO GIVE THE AGENT FULL SUPPORT FOR PROMOTING AN D CREATING MARKET FOR THE PRODUCTS OF THE PRINCIPAL IN THE TERRITORY. 7.2 TO INFORM THE AGENT ON RECEIPT OF AN INQUIRY FR OM THE TERRITORY REQUIRING DIRECT SUPPLY . 7.3 THE AGENT SHALL BE ENTITLED TO COMMISSION AS AG REED UPON IN THE CONTRACT. 7.4 TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY THE AGENT WHILE MAKING THE OFFER. ITA NO.1400/AHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 PAGE 11 OF 27 7.5 TO PROVIDE ALL INFORMATIVE DATA, CATALOGUES AND TECHNICAL MATERIAL (ALL IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE) REGARDING THE PRINCIPAL'S PRODUCT S AND ACTIVITIES AND KEEP THE AGENT INFORMED ABOUT ALL RELEVANT CHARGES. 7.6 TO OFFER COMPETITIVE PRICES AS FAR AS POSSIBLE TO ENABLE THE SALE OF THE PRODUCTS AS THE AGENT IS ONLY ENTITLED FOR COMMISSIONS AND NOT FIXED SALARY ON HIS WORK. 7.7 THE PRINCIPAL NOMINATES MR. RANJIT LALA AS THE CONTACT PERSON WITH THE AGENT FOR ALL CORRESPONDENCES AND COMMUNICATIONS. ARTICLE 9 - TERMINATION. 9.1 THIS AGREEMENT SHALL REMAIN VALID FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF SIGNING. THE SAID AGREEMENT CAN ALSO BE TERMINATED BY EITHER PARTY ANYTIME GIVING NOTICE TO THE OTHER PARTY OF AT LEAST 90 DAYS IN AD VANCE BY FAX AND FOLLOWED BY REGISTERED LETTER STATING REASONS FOR THE TERMINATI ON. THE AGREEMENT CAN BE REINSTATED FOR A FURTHER PERIOD OF TWO YEARS BASED ON MUTUAL A GREEMENT AND THEN AFTER ITS TERMINATION ANOTHER PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS. 9.2 IN THE EVENT OF THE TERMINATION, THE AGENT WILL FURNISH ALL THE RELEVANT INFORMATION TO THE PRINCIPAL AND WILL BE RESPONSIBL E FOR REALIZATION OF PAYMENTS OUTSTANDING TILL DATE WITHIN THE TERRITORY. ALSO TH E AGENT SHALL RETURN ALL THE CUSTOMERS RECORDS AND OTHER DATA RELATING TO THE CO MPANY'S BUSINESS OR SERVICES WHICH MAY BE IN HIS POSSESSION. 9.3 IN THE EVENT OF TERMINATION, IF ANY CONTRACT IS CONCLUDED AFTER THE TERMINATION DATE, BUT THE EXERCISE HAS COMMENCED PRIOR TO THE TERMINA TION DATE, THE AGENT IS ENTITLED FOR THE APPLICABLE COMMISSIONS. SALES COMMISSION FOR THE SONATRACH GK3 PROJECT WELSPUN WILL PAY GLOBAL SYNERGY INTERNATIONAL LTD. IN ITS CAPACITY AS AGENT FOR WELSPUN A SALES COMMISSION, BASED ON T HE FOB MILL SALES PRICE FOR THE GK 3 PROJECT EQUAL TO: (I) 2% OF THE FOB MILL VALUE IN U.S. DOLLARS FOR THE ORDERED QUANTITY. ALL SALES COMMISSIONS SHALL BE PAID IN U.S. DOLLARS TO THE BANK ACCOUNT TO BE ADVISED BY GLOBAL SYNERGY, DETAILS OF WHICH WILL BE PROVIDE D BY THE AGENT. THE SALES COMMISSION SHALL BE PAYABLE BY WELSPUN TO GLOBAL SY NERGY INTERNATIONAL LTD. AS INTERIM PAYMENTS ON PRORATE B ASIS AFTER REALIZATION OF THE PAYMENTS RECEIVED BY THE PRINCIPAL WITHIN A REASONA BLE TIME BUT NOT EXCEEDING 30 DAYS FROM RECEIPT OF PAYMENT BY THE PRINCIPAL. SALES COMMISSION FOR THE SONATRACH GK3 PROJECT BY THE VIRTUE OF THIS ADDENDUM, WELSPUN AGREE TO PA Y GLOBAL SYNERGY INTERNATIONAL LTD., IN ITS CAPACITY AS AGENT FOR WE LSPUN, A SALES COMMISSION, BASED ON THE FOB MILL SALES PRICE FOR T HE GK 3 PROJECT EQUAL TO: ITA NO.1400/AHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 PAGE 12 OF 27 (I) 4.10% OF THE FOB MILL VALUE IN U.S. DOLLAR FO R THE QUANTITY SHIPPED IS LAST (18') SHIPMENT. (A) GLOBAL SYNERGY INTERNATIONAL LTD AGREES TO UNCONDITIONALLY TO FULFILL THE SCOPE SET THEREIN BY THE VIRTUE OF THIS ADDENDUM. (B) THIS COMMISSION IS OVER THE ABOVE THE COMMISS ION PAYABLE BY WELSPUN TO GLOBAL SYNERGY AS SPECIFIED IN ANNEXURE- 1 OF AGENCY AGREEMENT DATED 29TH DAY OF JUNE, 2008. ALL SALES COMMISSION SHALL BE PAID IN U.S. DOLLARS TO THE BANK ACCOUNT TO BE ADVISED BY GLOBAL SYNERGY, DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AVAILABLE W ITH WELSPUN. UNLESS OTHERWISE AGREED, THE SALES COMMISSION SHALL BE PAY ABLE BY WELSPUN TO GLOBAL SYNERGY INTERNATIONAL LTD., AS INTERIM PAYMENTS ON PRORATE BASIS AFTER REALIZATION OF THE PAYMENTS RECEIVED BY THE PRINCIP AL WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME BUT NOT EXCEEDING 30 DAYS FROM RECEIPT OF PAYMENT BY WE LSPUN. 38. AS IS CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE PROVISIONS OF THE AG REEMENT, THE WORK THAT THE AGENT HAS TO DONE UNDER THIS AGREEMENT, AS IS STATED UNAM BIGUOUSLY IN THE AGREEMENT ITSELF, IS TO 'CARRY OUT ALL THE DUTIES NORMALLY RENDERED B Y AN AGENT' INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE ACTIVITIES SPECIFIED THEREIN. THE CONSIDERAT ION FOR WHICH THE PAYMENT MADE TO THE COMMISSION AGENT IS OBTAINING OF THE ORDERS AND NOT ANY SERVICES PER SE. THE CONSIDERATION IS COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF BUSINESS PROCURED. OBVIOUSLY, IF THERE ARE NO BUSINESS GENERATED FOR THE PRINCIPAL, THE AGENT GETS NOTHING. QUITE CLEARLY, WHAT IS DONE BY THE AGENT IS NOT A RENDITION OF SERVICE BUT PURE ENTREPRENEURIAL ACTIVITY. THE WORK ACTUALLY UNDERTAKEN BY THE AGENT IS THE WORK O F ACTING AS AGENT AND SO PROCURING BUSINESS FOR THE ASSESSEE BUT AS THE CONTEMPORARY B USINESS MODELS REQUIRE THE WORK OF AGENT CANNOT SIMPLY AND ONLY BE TO OBTAIN THE ORDER S FOR THE PRODUCT, AS THIS OBTAINING OF ORDERS IS INVARIABLY PRECEDED BY AND FOLLOWED BY SEVERAL PREPARATORY AND FOLLOW UP ACTIVITIES. THE DESCRIPTION OF AGENT'S OBLIGATION S ETS OUT SUCH COMMON ANCILLARY ACTIVITIES AS WELL BUT THAT DOES NOT OVERRIDE, OR R ELEGATE, THE CORE AGENCY WORK. THE CONSIDERATION PAID TO THE AGENT IS ALSO BASED ON TH E BUSINESS PROCURED AND THE AGENCY AGREEMENTS DONOT PROVIDE FOR ANY INDEPENDENT, STAND ALONE OR SPECIFIC CONSIDERATION FOR THESE SERVICES. THE SERVICES RENDERED UNDER THE AGREEMENT CANNOT, THEREFORE, BE CONSIDERED TO BE TECHNICAL SERVICES IN NATURE OR CH ARACTER. THE SERVICES RENDERED IN THE COURSE OF RENDERING AGENCY SERVICES ARE ESSENTIALLY BUSINESS SERVICES AND TO OBTAIN THE BUSINESS. WE HAVE ALSO NOTED THAT, SO FAR AS RENDIT ION OF TECHNICAL SERVICES IS CONCERNED, ONE OF THE MAIN POINTS IN THE CASE OF TH E REVENUE, AS EVIDENT FROM A PLAIN READING OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER UNDER SECTION 201, IS THAT 'MANUFACTURING OF SPECIALIZED PIPE WAS A HIGHLY TECHNICAL ACTIVITY IN VOLVING VERY COMPLEX TECHNICAL EXERCISE OF TECHNOLOGY AND SKILLED LABOUR AND FINES T GRADE OF RAW MATERIAL' AND THAT 'OBVIOUSLY, TO PROCURE THE ORDERS, THE ASSESSEE COM PANY WILL NEED SPECIALIST AGENTS WHO CAN UNDERSTAND THE NITTY GRITTY OF THE ASSESSEE 'S BUSINESS AND CAN DEMONSTRATE THE ASSESSEE'S BUSINESS PROFILE AND QUALITY OF PRODUCTS OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE POTENTIAL CLIENTS TO CONVINCE THEM TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT W ITH THE ASSESSEE COMPANY JUST BECAUSE A PRODUCT IS HIGHLY TECHNICAL DOES NOT CHAN GE THE CHARACTER OF ACTIVITY OF THE SALE AGENT. WHETHER A SALESMAN SELLS A HANDCRAFTED SOUVENIR OR A TOP OF THE LINE LAPTOP, HE IS SELLING NEVERTHELESS. IT WILL BE ABSURD TO SU GGEST THAT IN THE FORMER CASE, HE IS SELLING AND THE LATTER, HE WILL BE RENDERING TECHNI CAL SERVICES. THE OBJECT OF THE SALESMAN IS TO SELL AND FAMILIARITY WITH THE TECHNI CAL DETAILS, WHATEVER BE THE WORTH OF ITA NO.1400/AHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 PAGE 13 OF 27 THOSE TECHNICAL DETAILS, IS ONLY TOWARDS THE END OF SELLING. IN A TECHNOLOGY DRIVEN WORLD THAT WE LIVE IN, EVEN SIMPLEST OF DAY TO DAY GADGETS THAT WE USE ARE FAIRLY TECHNICAL AND COMPLEX. UNDOUBTEDLY WHEN A TECHNICAL PRODUCT IS BEING SOLD, THE PERSON SELLING THE PRODUCT SHOULD BE FAMILIAR WITH TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS OF THE PRODUCT BUT THEN THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER DOES NOT ANYWAY CHANGE THE ECONOMIC ACTIVITY. NOTHING, THEREFORE, TURNS ON THE DETAILS OF THE PRODUCTS BEING TECHNICAL. IT WAS ALSO NOTED THAT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT 'IT I S A VERY TECHNICAL EXERCISE TO OBTAIN THE CONTRACTS SINCE IT INVOLVES COMPLEX PROCESS REQ UIRING ELABORATE DISCUSSION, TECHNICAL EXPERTISE AND PRESENT OF COMPLEX TECHNICA L PRESENTATION, ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH CAN ONLY BE DONE BY A SPECIALIST IN THIS FIELD SO AS TO CONVINCE THE CLIENTS ABOUT WELSPUN'S SUITABILITY TO THE CONTRACT '. THIS AT BEST SIGNIFIES COMPLEXITY IN THE BUSINESSES AND THE NEED OF TECHNICAL INPUTS IN THE PROCESS OF BUSINESSES, PARTICULARLY WHEN THE PRODUCTS BEING DEALT WITH ARE TECHNICAL PRODUCTS, BUT THEN MERELY BECAUSE TECHNICAL INPUTS ARE NEEDED IN CARRY ING OUT BUSINESS ACTIVITY, IT DOES NOT BECOME A TECHNICAL SERVICE RATHER THAN A BUSINE SS ACTIVITY. AT THE COST OF REPETITION, WE MUST EMPHASIZE THE IMPORTANT DISTINC TION BETWEEN A BUSINESS ACTIVITY, REQUIRING UNDERSTANDING OF RELATED TECHNOLOGY, AND RENDITION OF TECHNICAL SERVICES SIMPLICTOR. IN ANY CASE, WHAT HAS BEEN DESCRIBED AS A TECHNICAL SERVICE IS THE SERVICE BEING RENDERED TO THE BUYER BUT THE PAYMENT RECEIVE D BY THE COMMISSION AGENTS IS NOT FOR THIS SERVICE PER SE BUT FOR GENERATING BUSINESS ORDERS FOR THE ASSESSEE. GENERATING BUSINESS OR SECURING ORDERS IS AN ENTREPRENEURIAL A CTIVITY AND CANNOT, BY ANY STRETCH OF LOGIC, BE TREATED AS A TECHNICAL SERVICE PER SE. TH E SAME IS THE POSITION WITH REGARD TO ASSISTANCE WITH RESPECT OF LOGISTICS, SUCH AS SHIPP ING AND HANDLING SERVICES, WITH RESPECT TO SALE FORECASTING, WITH RESPECT TO GATHER ING INFORMATION ON MARKETS, BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT AND ON SPECIFIC BUYERS AND WITH RESPECT TO DEVELOPMENT OF SALES NETWORK. ALL THESE SERVICES ARE ESSENTIALLY INTEGRAL PART OF , AND ARE THUS AIMED AT, DEVELOPING BUSINESS FOR THE ASSESSEE AND SECURING ORDERS FOR T HE ASSESSEE FROM THE RIGHT PERSONS. NEITHER THESE SERVICES CAN BE VIEWED ON A STANDALON E BASIS DIVORCED FROM THE ECONOMIC ACTIVITY OF SECURING ORDERS, NOR ANY PAYME NT CAN BE SAID TO BE FOR RENDITION OF THESE SERVICES INASMUCH AS IT IS NOT THE RENDITI ON OF THESE SERVICES BUT SECURING BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH TRIGGERS THE INCOME ACCRUING TO THE NON-RESIDENT AGENTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND IT IS SECURING OF BUSINESS FOR THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE INCOME ACCRUING TO THE ASSESSEE. THIS ISSUE IS ALSO COVERED, IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, BY A COORDINATE BENCH DECISION IN THE CASE OF DY. CIT V. TROIKAA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. [IT APPEAL NO. 2028/AHD/13 AND CO NO 13/AHD/14] AND VICE VERSA, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN, INTER ALIA, OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: '5. AS REGARDS THE REFERENCES TO SECTION 9(1)(VII), AS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, WE FIN D THAT ASPECT OF THE MATTER IS ALSO COVERED, IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, BY A LARGE NUMB ER OF JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS- INCLUDING HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT'S JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. FARIDA LEATHER CO. [(2016) 66 TAXMANN.COM 321 (MADRAS)], WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE, INTER ALIA, OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: 5. THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE/RESPONDENT IS THAT THE AGENCY COMMISSION/SALES COMMISSION PAID BY THE ASSE SSEE TO NON-RESIDENT AGENTS, FOR THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THEM, OUTSIDE INDIA, IN PR OCURING EXPORT ORDERS FOR THE ASSESSEE, WOULD NOT ATTRACT OR PARTAKE THE CHARACTE R OF 'FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES' AS ITA NO.1400/AHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 PAGE 14 OF 27 EXPLAINED IN THE CONTEXT OF 9(1)(VII) OF THE ACT AN D THEREFORE, THERE IS NO SCOPE FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 195 OF THE ACT (TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE). IT IS ALSO CONTENDED THAT AS THE NON-RESIDENT AGENTS HAVE NEITHER BUSINESS CONNECTION IN INDIA NOR THEY HAVE PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT IN INDI A, THEY ARE LIABLE TO BE TAXED IN INDIA. 5.1 YET ANOTHER CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE IS THAT: (A) THE ASSESSEE PAID THE AMOUNT BY WAY OF COMMISSION TO FO REIGN AGENTS FOR THE SERVICES RENDERED OUTSIDE INDIA; (B) THE TAX DEDUCTION AT SO URCE (TDS) IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE ON ALL PAYMENTS TO NON-RESIDENTS, ONLY IF SUCH PAYM ENTS ARE LIABLE TO BE TAXED IN INDIA. (C) FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THIS COURT, CIT V. FA IZAN SHOES (P.) LTD. [2014] 367 ITR 155/226 TAXMAN 115/48 TAXMANN.COM 48 (MAD.), THE AS SESSEE IS NOT LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE, WHEN THE NON-RESIDENT AGENT PROVIDES SERVICES OUTSIDE INDIA ON PAYMENT OF COMMISSION. 5.2 THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE IS THAT SUCH SERV ICES ARE ATTRACTED BY EXPLANATION (2) TO SECTION 9 (1) (VII) OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE TDS CERTIFICATE IS ESSENTIAL. 6. WHETHER THIS CONTENTION IS CORRECT, IS THE ISSUE TO BE DECIDED. 7. IN ORDER TO APPRECIATE THIS CONTENTION, IT IS NE CESSARY TO CONSIDER THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT: (I) SECTION 40(A)(I) OF THE ACT : 'SECTION 40 - AMOUNTS NOT DEDUCTIBLE: NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY IN SECTION S 30 TO 38, THE FOLLOWING AMOUNTS SHALL NOT BE DEDUCTED IN COMPUTING THE INCOME CHARG EABLE UNDER THE HEAD 'PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION', (A) IN THE CASE OF ANY ASSESSEE (I) ANY INTEREST (NOT BEING INTEREST ON A LOAN IS SUED FOR PUBLIC SUBSCRIPTION BEFORE THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 1938), ROYALTY, FEES F OR TECHNICAL SERVICES OR OTHER SUM CHARGEABLE UNDER THIS ACT, WHICH IS PAYABLE, (A) OUTSIDE INDIA; OR (B) IN INDIA TO A NON-RESIDENT, NOT BEING A COMPA NY OR TO A FOREIGN COMPANY, ON WHICH TAX IS DEDUCTIBLE AT SOURCE UNDER CHAPTER XVIIB AND SUCH TAX HAS NOT BEEN DEDUCTED OR, AFTER DEDUCTION, HAS NOT BEEN PAID ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE SPECIFIED IN SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139: PROVIDED THAT WHERE IN RESPECT OF ANY SUCH SUM, TAX HAS BEEN DEDUCTED IN ANY SUBSEQUENT YEAR, OR HAS BEEN DEDUCTED DURING THE PR EVIOUS YEAR BUT PAID AFTER THE DUE DATE SPECIFIED IN SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139, S UCH SUM SHALL BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION IN COMPUTING THE INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS Y EAR IN WHICH SUCH TAX HAS BEEN PAID. EXPLANATION: FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SUB-CLAUSE, (A) 'ROYALTY' SHALL HAVE THE SAME MEANING AS IN E XPLANATION 2 TO CLAUSE (VI) OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 9: ITA NO.1400/AHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 PAGE 15 OF 27 (B) 'FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES' SHALL HAVE THE SAME MEANING AS IN EXPLANATION 2 TO CLAUSE (VII) OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 9: (IA) THIRTY PER CENT OF ANY SUM PAYABLE TO A RESIDE NT, ON WHICH TAX IS DEDUCTIBLE AT SOURCE UNDER CHAPTER XVIIB AND SUCH TAX HAS NOT BEE N DEDUCTED OR, AFTER DEDUCTION, HAS NOT BEEN PAID ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE SPECIFI ED IN SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139. PROVIDED THAT WHERE IN RESPECT OF ANY SUCH SUM, TAX HAS BEEN DEDUCTED IN ANY SUBSEQUENT YEAR, OR HAS BEEN DEDUCTED DURING THE PR EVIOUS YEAR BUT PAID AFTER THE DUE DATE SPECIFIED IN SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139 TH IRTY PER CENT OF, SUCH SUM SHALL BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION IN COMPUTING THE INCOME OF T HE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH SUCH TAX HAS BEEN PAID. PROVIDED FURTHER THAT WHERE AN ASSESSEE FAILS TO DE DUCT THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF THE TAX IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER XVII-B ON ANY SUCH SUM BUT IS NOT DEEMED TO BE AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT UNDER THE FIRST PROVISO TO SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 201, THEN, FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS SUB-CLAU SE, IT SHALL BE DEEMED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEDUCTED AND PAID THE TAX ON SUCH SUM ON THE DATE OF FURNISHING OF RETURN OF INCOME BY THE RESIDENT PAYEE REFERRED TO IN THE SAID PROVISO.' (II) EXPLANATION 2 TO SECTION 195(1) OF THE ACT : 'SECTION 195 - OTHER SUMS: (1) ANY PERSON RESPONSIB LE FOR PAYING TO A NON-RESIDENT NOT BEING A COMPANY, OR TO A FOREIGN COMPANY, ANY I NTEREST (NOT BEING INTEREST REFERRED TO IN SECTION 194LB OR SECTION 194LC) OR SECTION 19 4LD OR ANY OTHER SUM CHARGEABLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT (NOT BEING INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD 'SALARIES') SHALL, AT THE TIME OF CREDIT OF SUCH IN COME TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE PAYEE OR AT THE TIME OF PAYMENT THEREOF IN CASH OR BY THE ISSUE OF A CHEQUE OR DRAFT OR BY ANY OTHER MODE, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER, DEDUCT INCOME-TAX THEREON AT THE RATES IN FORCE : PROVIDED THAT IN THE CASE OF INTEREST PAYABLE BY TH E GOVERNMENT OR A PUBLIC SECTOR BANK WITHIN THE MEANING OF CLAUSE (23D) OF SECTION 10 OR A PUBLIC FINANCIAL INSTITUTION WITHIN THE MEANING OF THAT CLAUSE, DEDUCTION OF TAX SHALL BE MADE ONLY AT THE TIME OF PAYMENT THEREOF IN CASH OR BY THE ISSUE OF A CHEQUE OR DRAFT OR BY ANY OTHER MODE : PROVIDED FURTHER THAT NO SUCH DEDUCTION SHALL BE MA DE IN RESPECT OF ANY DIVIDENDS REFERRED TO IN SECTION 115-O. [EXPLANATION 1] :...................... [EXPLANATION 2.- FOR THE REMOVAL OF DOUBTS, IT IS H EREBY CLARIFIED THAT THE OBLIGATION TO COMPLY WITH SUB-SECTION (1) AND TO MAKE DEDUCTION T HEREUNDER APPLIES AND SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE ALWAYS APPLIED AND EXTENDS AND SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE ALWAYS EXTENDED TO ALL PERSONS, RESIDENT OR NON-RESIDENT, WHETHER OR NOT THE NON-RESIDENT PERSON HAS (I) A RESIDENCE OR PLACE OF BUSINESS OR BUSINESS CONNECTION IN INDIA; OR (II) ANY OTHER PRESENCE IN ANY MANNER WHATSOEVER IN INDIA.' EXPLANATION 4 TO SECTION 9 (1) (I) OF THE ACT: ITA NO.1400/AHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 PAGE 16 OF 27 'SECTION 9 - INCOME DEEMED TO ACCRUE OR ARISE IN IN DIA (1) THE FOLLOWING INCOMES SHALL BE DEEMED TO ACCRUE OR ARISE IN INDIA : (I) ALL INCOME ACCRUING OR ARISING, WHETHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY , THROUGH OR FROM ANY BUSINESS CONNECTION IN INDIA, OR THROUGH OR FROM ANY PROPERT Y IN INDIA, OR THROUGH OR FROM ANY ASSET OR SOURCE OF INCOME IN INDIA, OR THROUGH THE TRANSFER OF A CAPITAL ASSET SITUATE IN INDIA. ** ** ** EXPLANATION 4.- FOR THE REMOVAL OF DOUBTS, IT IS HE REBY CLARIFIED THAT THE EXPRESSION 'THROUGH' SHALL MEAN AND INCLUDE AND SHALL BE DEEME D TO HAVE ALWAYS MEANT AND INCLUDED ''BY MEANS OF', 'IN CONSEQUENCE OF' OR 'BY REASON OF'.' 7.1 SECTION 40 OF THE ACT SPELLS OUT WHAT AMOUNTS A RE NOT DEDUCTIBLE FROM THE INCOME CHARGED TO TAX UNDER THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSIN ESS OR PROFESSION. 7.2 SECTION 40(A)(I) OF THE ACT DEALS WITH INTEREST AND OTHER SUMS PAYABLE OUTSIDE INDIA. THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SUB-CLAUSE MADE APPLI CABLE TO INTEREST HAVE BEEN EXTENDED TO PAYMENT OF ROYALTY, TECHNICAL FEES AND ANY OTHER SUM CHARGEABLE UNDER THIS ACT. THE SECTION PROVIDES THAT THE SUMS COVERE D BY THE SUB-CLAUSE, WHICH ARE CHARGEABLE UNDER THE ACT AND ARE PAYABLE OUTSIDE IN DIA, SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED AS AN EXPENDITURE TO THE ASSESSEE, UNLESS TAX IS PAID THE REON OR IS DEDUCTED THEREFROM UNDER CHAPTER XVII-B OF THE ACT. 7.3 SECTION 195(1) OF THE ACT DEALS WITH DEDUCTION OF TAX FROM PAYMENT TO NON- RESIDENTS AND FOREIGN COMPANIES. SECTION 195(1) OF THE ACT COMES INTO PLAY AT A STAGE WHERE THE PAYER, WHO IS ENJOINED TO DEDUCT THE TAX, EITHER CREDIT SUCH INCOME TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE PAYEE OR MAKE PAYMENT THEREOF, WHETH ER IN CASH / CHEQUE / DRAFT OR ANY OTHER MODE. THE TAXABILITY OF SUCH AMOUNT IN THE HA NDS OF THE PAYEE OR OCCASIONING OF THE TAXABLE EVENT IS ALIEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTI ON 195(1) OF THE ACT. 7.4 SECTION 195(2) IS AN ENABLING PROVISION, ENABLI NG AN ASSESSEE TO FILE AN APPLICATION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DETERMINE THE APPRO PRIATE PROPORTION OF THE SUM CHARGEABLE AND UPON SUCH DETERMINATION, THE TAX HAS TO BE DEDUCTED UNDER SECTION 195(1) OF THE ACT. THE PAYMENT IS MADE CREDITED TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE PAYEE. 8. THE QUESTION NOW IS, WHETHER THE ASSESSEE OUGHT TO HAVE DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER SECTION 195 OF THE ACT, WHEN THE ASSESSEE PAID COMMISSION TO FOREIGN AGENT. 9. THIS QUESTION HAS BEEN ANSWERED BY THE HON 'BLE SUPREME COURT, IN THE CASE OF G.E.INDIA TECHNOLOGY CENTRE (P.) LTD. (SUPRA), IN W HICH, IT IS VERY CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT THE TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE OBLIGATIONS UNDER S ECTION 195(1) OF THE ACT ARISES, ONLY IF THE PAYMENT IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE NON-RESIDENT RECIPIENT. 9.1 THEREFORE, MERELY BECAUSE A PERSON HAS NOT DEDU CTED TAX AT SOURCE OR A REMITTANCE ABROAD, IT CANNOT BE INFERRED THAT THE PERSON MAKIN G THE REMITTANCE, NAMELY, THE ITA NO.1400/AHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 PAGE 17 OF 27 ASSESSEE, IN THE INSTANT CASE, HAS COMMITTED A DEFA ULT IN DISCHARGING HIS TAX WITHHOLDING OBLIGATIONS BECAUSE SUCH OBLIGATIONS CO ME INTO EXISTENCE ONLY WHEN THE RECIPIENT HAS A TAX LIABILITY IN INDIA. 9.2 THE UNDERLYING PRINCIPLE IS THAT, THE TAX WITHH OLDING LIABILITY OF THE PAYER IS INHERENTLY A VICARIOUS LIABILITY ON BEHALF OF THE R ECIPIENT AND THEREFORE, WHEN THE RECIPIENT / FOREIGN AGENT DOES NOT HAVE THE PRIMARY LIABILITY TO BE TAXED IN RESPECT OF INCOME EMBEDDED IN THE RECEIPT, THE VICARIOUS LIABI LITY OF THE PAYER TO DEDUCT TAX DOES NOT ARISE. THIS VICARIOUS TAX WITHHOLDING LIABILITY CANNOT BE INVOKED, UNLESS PRIMARY TAX LIABILITY OF THE RECIPIENT / FOREIGN AGENT IS E STABLISHED. IN THIS CASE, THE PRIMARY TAX LIABILITY OF THE FOREIGN AGENT IS NOT ESTABLISHED. THEREFORE, THE VICARIOUS LIABILITY ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DEDUCT THE TAX AT SOURCE DO ES NOT EXIST. 10. FURTHER, JUST BECAUSE, THE PAYER / ASSESSEE HAS NOT OBTAINED A SPECIFIED DECLARATION FROM THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES TO THE EFFECT THAT THE RECIPENT IS NOT LIABLE TO BE TAXED IN INDIA, IN RESPECT OF THE INCOME EMBEDDED IN THE PAR TICULAR PAYMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT PROCEED ON THE BASIS THAT THE PAYER HAS AN OBLIGATION TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE. HE STILL HAS TO DEMONSTRATE AND ESTABLISH T HAT THE PAYEE HAS A TAX LIABILITY IN RESPECT OF THE INCOME EMBEDDED IN THE IMPUGNED PAYM ENT. 11. IN THE INSTANT CASE, IT IS SEEN, ADMITTEDLY THA T THE NONRESIDENT AGENTS WERE ONLY PROCURING ORDERS ABROAD AND FOLLOWING UP PAYMENTS W ITH BUYERS. NO OTHER SERVICES ARE RENDERED OTHER THAN THE ABOVE. SOURCING ORDERS ABROAD, FOR WHICH PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE DIRECTLY TO THE NON-RESIDENTS ABROAD, DOE S NOT INVOLVE ANY TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE OR ASSISTANCE IN TECHNICAL OPERATIONS OR OTHER SUPPORT IN RESPECT OF ANY OTHER TECHNICAL MATTERS. IT ALSO DOES NOT REQUIRE A NY CONTRIBUTION OF TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE, EXPERIENCE, EXPERTISE, SKILL OR TECHNICA L KNOW-HOW OF THE PROCESSES INVOLVED OR CONSIST IN THE DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSFER OF A TECHNICAL PLAN OR DESIGN. THE PARTIES MERELY SOURCE THE PROSPECTIVE BUYERS FOR EF FECTING SALES BY THE ASSESSEE, AND IS ANALOGOUS TO A LAND OR A HOUSE / REAL ESTATE AGENT / BROKER, WHO WILL BE INVOLVED IN MERELY IDENTIFYING THE RIGHT PROPERTY FOR THE PROSP ECTIVE BUYER / SELLER AND ONCE HE COMPLETES THE DEAL, HE GETS THE COMMISSION. THUS, B Y NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE TRANSACTION PARTAKES THE CH ARACTER OF 'FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES' AS EXPLAINED IN THE CONTEXT OF SECTION 9( 1)(VII) OF THE ACT. 12. AS THE NON-RESIDENTS WERE NOT PROVIDING ANY TEC HNICAL SERVICES TO THE ASSESSEE, AS HELD ABOVE AND AS HELD BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS), THE COMMISSION PAYMENT MADE TO THEM DOES NOT FALL INTO THE CATEGORY OF 'FEES OF TECHNICAL SERVICES' AND THEREFORE, EXPLANATION (2) TO SECTION 9(1)(VII) OF THE ACT, AS INVOKED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HAS NO APPLICATIO N TO THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE'S CASE. 13. IN THIS CASE, THE COMMISSION PAYMENTS TO THE NO N-RESIDENT AGENTS ARE NOT TAXABLE IN INDIA, AS THE AGENTS ARE REMAINING OUTSIDE, SERVICE S ARE RENDERED ABROAD AND PAYMENTS ARE ALSO MADE ABROAD. 14. THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE R EVENUE IS THAT THE TRIBUNAL OUGHT NOT TO HAVE RELIED UPON THE DECISION G.E.INDIA TECH NOLOGY'S CASE, CITED SUPRA, IN VIEW OF INSERTION OF EXPLANATION 4 TO SECTION 9(1)(I) OF THE ACT WITH CORRESPONDING ITA NO.1400/AHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 PAGE 18 OF 27 INTRODUCTION OF EXPLANATION 2 TO SECTION 195(1) OF THE ACT, BOTH BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2012, WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 01.04.1962. 15. THE ISSUE RAISED IN THIS CASE HAS BEEN THE SUBJ ECT MATTER OF THE DECISION, IN THE RECENT CASE, CIT V. KIKANI EXPORTS (P.) LTD. [2014] 369 ITR 96/[2015] 232 TAXMAN 255/49 TAXMANN.COM 601 (MAD.) WHEREIN THE CONTENTIO N OF THE REVENUE HAS BEEN REJECTED AND ASSESSEE HAS BEEN UPHELD AND THE RELEV ANT OBSERVATION READS AS UNDER: '... THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE NON-RESIDENT AGEN T COULD AT BEST BE CALLED AS A SERVICE FOR COMPLETION OF THE EXPORT COMMITMENT AND WOULD N OT FALL WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF 'FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES' AND, THEREFORE, SECTI ON 9 WAS NOT APPLICABLE AND, CONSEQUENTLY, SECTION 195 DID NOT COME INTO PLAY. T HEREFORE, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOWARDS EXPORT COMMISSION PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE NON- RESIDENT WAS RIGHTLY DELETED.' 16. WHEN THE TRANSACTION DOES NOT ATRACT THE PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 9 OF THE ACT, THEN THERE IS NO QUESTION OF APPLYING EXPLANATION 4 TO S ECTION 9 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE REVENUE HAS NO CASE AND THE TAX CASE APPEAL IS LIAB LE TO BE DISMISSED. 6. CLEARLY, THEREFORE, THE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION IN THE HANDS OF THE NON-RESIDENT AGENT, AS LONG AS SUCH AN AGENT CARRIES OUT ITS ACT IVITIES OUTSIDE INDIA, DOES NOT RESULT IN TAXABILITY IN THE HANDS OF THE AGENT IN INDIA.' 39. AS WE DEAL WITH THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER, WE M AY ALSO TAKE NOTE OF THE FOLLOWING ANALYSIS, IN THE CASE OF UPS SCS ASIA LTD. V. ASSTT . DIT, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) [2012] 50 SOT 268/18 TAXMANN.COM 302 (MUM.), ABOUT THE SCOPE OF MANAGERIAL, CONSULTANCY AND TECHNICAL SERVICES WHICH THE SERVIC ES RENDERED MUST FULFIL SO AS TO LEAD TO TAXABILITY AS FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES: '5. A BARE PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE QUOTED PROVISION IN DICATES THAT THE 'FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES' MEANS ANY CONSIDERATION FOR RENDERING OF ANY 'MANAGERIAL, TECHNICAL OR CONSULTANCY SERVICES' BUT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE CONS IDERATION FOR ANY CONSTRUCTION, ASSEMBLY ETC. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS HELD THE SERVI CES RENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE AS FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES' COMING WITH IN THE SWE EP OF 'MANAGERIAL, TECHNICAL OR CONSULTANCY SERVICES'. ON THE CONTRARY, THE CONTENT ION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS REMAINED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS US THAT THE SUCH SERVICES DO NOT FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF ANY OF THE CATEGORIES TAKEN NOTE OF BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE WILL EXAMINE AS TO WHETHER THE SERVICES SO PROVIDED BY THE ASSES SEE FALL WITHIN THE SCOPE OF 'MANAGERIAL, TECHNICAL OR CONSULTANCY SERVICES' AS PER EXPLANATION 2 TO SECTION 9(1)(VII). 6. IN ORDER TO APPRECIATE THE NATURE OF SERVICES MO RE ELABORATELY, IT IS RELEVANT TO CONSIDER THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BE TWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND MENLO INDIA EXECUTED ON NOVEMBER 7, 2006 WITH EFFECT FROM 1ST JUNE, 2005, A COPY OF WHICH IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE 1 ONWARDS OF THE PAPER BOOK. T HE SCOPE OF SERVICES HAS BEEN GIVEN IN CLAUSE 1.1. IN THE RECITAL CLAUSE IT HAS B EEN PROVIDED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY MAY REQUIRE MENLO INDIA TO PERFORM LOGISTIC S SERVICES SUCH AS TRANSPORT, PROCUREMENT, CUSTOM CLEARANCE, SORTING, DELIVERY, W AREHOUSING AND PICKING UP ITA NO.1400/AHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 PAGE 19 OF 27 SERVICES (LOCAL SERVICES) WITHIN INDIA (LOCAL OPERA TING AREA). IT HAS FURTHER BEEN PROVIDED THAT MENLO INDIA MAY ALSO SEEK SIMILAR SER VICES FROM THE ASSESSEECOMPANY SUCH AS TRANSPORT, PROCUREMENT, CUSTOMS CLEARANCE, SORTING, DELIVERY, WAREHOUSING AND PICK UP SERVICES (INTERNATIONAL SERVICES) OUTSIDE I NDIA. IN THE PRESENT APPEAL WE ARE CONCERNED WITH THE 'INTERNATIONAL SERVICES' PROVIDE D BY THE ASSESSEE TO MENLO OUTSIDE INDIA. THESE SERVICES COMPRISE OF TRANSPORT, PROCUR EMENT, CUSTOMS CLEARANCE, SORTING, WAREHOUSING AND PICK UP SERVICES ON THE CARGO EXPOR TED BY MENLO ON BEHALF OF ITS CUSTOMERS. HAVING NOTED THE NATURE OF SERVICES PROV IDED BY THE ASSESSEE OUTSIDE INDIA, FOR WHICH MENLO INDIA MADE THE PAYMENT, LET US CONS IDER IF THESE CAN BE DESCRIBED AS MANAGERIAL OR TECHNICAL OR CONSULTANCY SERVICES. 7. FIRST WE WILL CONSIDER THE AMBIT OF 'MANAGERIAL SERVICES' TO TEST WHETHER THE INSTANT SERVICES CAN QUALIFY TO BE SO CALLED. ORDINARILY TH E MANAGERIAL SERVICES MEAN MANAGING THE AFFAIRS BY LAYING DOWN CERTAIN POLICIE S, STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES AND THEN EVALUATING THE ACTUAL PERFORMANCE IN THE LIGHT OF THE PROCEDURES SO LAID DOWN. THE MANAGERIAL SERVICES CONTEMPLATE NOT ONLY EXECUT ION BUT ALSO THE PLANNING PART OF THE ACTIVITY TO BE DONE. IF THE OVERALL PLANNING AS PECT IS MISSING AND ONE HAS TO FOLLOW A DIRECTION FROM THE OTHER FOR EXECUTING PARTICULAR JOB IN A PARTICULAR MANNER, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE FORMER IS MANAGING THAT AFFAIR. IT WOULD MEAN THAT THE DIRECTIONS OF THE LATTER ARE EXECUTED SIMPLICITY WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY PLANNING PART INVOLVED IN THE EXECUTION AND ALSO THE EVALUATION OF THE PERFORMANC E. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SPECIFIC DEFINITION OF THE PHRASE 'MANAGERIAL SERVICES' AS U SED IN SECTION 9(1)(VII) DEFINING THE 'FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES', IT NEEDS TO BE CONSI DERED IN A COMMERCIAL SENSE. IT CANNOT BE INTERPRETED IN A NARROW SENSE TO MEAN SIM PLY EXECUTING THE DIRECTIONS OF THE OTHER FOR DOING A SPECIFIC TASK. FOR INSTANCE, IF G OODS ARE TO BE LOADED AND SOME WORKER IS INSTRUCTED TO PLACE THE GOODS ON A CARRIE R IN A PARTICULAR MANNER, THE ACT OF THE WORKER IN PLACING THE GOODS IN THE PRESCRIBED M ANNER, CANNOT BE DESCRIBED AS MANAGING THE GOODS. IT IS A SIMPLE DIRECTION GIVEN TO THE WORKER WHO HAS TO EXECUTE IT IN THE WAY PRESCRIBED. IT IS QUITE NATURAL THAT SOM E SORT OF APPLICATION OF MIND IS REQUIRED IN EACH AND EVERY ASPECT OF THE WORK DONE. AS IN THE ABOVE EXAMPLE WHEN THE WORKER WILL LIFT THE GOODS, HE IS EXPECTED TO B E VIGILANT IN PICKING UP THE GOODS MOVING TOWARDS THE CARRIER AND THEN PLACING THEM. T HIS ACT OF THE WORKER CANNOT BE DESCRIBED AS MANAGING THE GOODS BECAUSE HE SIMPLY F OLLOWED THE DIRECTION GIVEN TO HIM. ON THE OTHER HAND, 'MANAGING' ENCOMPASSES NOT ONLY THE SIMPLE EXECUTION OF A WORK, BUT ALSO CERTAIN OTHER ASPECTS, SUCH AS PLANN ING FOR THE WAY IN WHICH THE EXECUTION IS TO BE DONE COUPLED WITH THE OVERALL RE SPONSIBILITY IN A LARGER SENSE. THUS IT IS MANIFEST THAT THE WORD 'MANAGING' IS WIDER IN SCOPE THAN THE WORD 'EXECUTING'. RATHER THE LATER IS EMBEDDED IN THE FORMER AND NOT VICE VERSA. 8. ADVERTING TO THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE PERFORMED FREIGHT AND LOGISTICS SERVICES OUTSIDE INDIA IN RES PECT OF CONSIGNMENTS ORIGINATING FROM INDIA UNDERTAKEN TO BE DELIVERED BY MENLO INDI A. THE ROLE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE ENTIRE TRANSACTION WAS TO PERFORM ONLY THE DESTINAT ION SERVICES OUTSIDE INDIA BY UNLOADING AND LOADING OF CONSIGNMENT, CUSTOM CLEARA NCE AND TRANSPORTATION TO THE ULTIMATE CUSTOMER. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, IT IS TOO MUCH TO CATEGORIZE SUCH RESTRICTED SERVICES AS MANAGERIAL SERVICES. WE, THE REFORE, JETTISON THIS CONTENTION RAISED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. ITA NO.1400/AHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 PAGE 20 OF 27 9. NOW WE TAKE UP THE NEXT COMPONENT OF THE DEFINIT ION OF 'FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES', BEING 'CONSULTANCY SERVICES', WHICH HAS BEEN PRESSED INTO SERVICE BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) TO FORTIFY HIS VIEW THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS COVERED WITHIN SECTION 9(1)(VII). THE WORD 'CONSULTANCY' ME ANS GIVING SOME SORT OF CONSULTATION DE HORS THE PERFORMANCE OR THE EXECUTI ON OF ANY WORK. IT IS ONLY WHEN SOME CONSIDERATION IS GIVEN FOR RENDERING SOME ADVI CE OR OPINION ETC., THAT THE SAME FALLS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF 'CONSULTANCY SERVICES'. T HE WORD 'CONSULTANCY' EXCLUDES ACTUAL 'EXECUTION'. THE NATURE OF SERVICES, BEING F REIGHT AND LOGISTICS SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE TO MENLO INDIA HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTE D BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THERE IS NOTHING LIKE GIVING ANY CONSULTATION WORTH THE N AME. RATHER SUCH PAYMENT IS WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE EXECUTION IN THE SHA PE OF TRANSPORT, PROCUREMENT, CUSTOMS CLEARANCE, DELIVERY, WAREHOUSING AND PICKIN G UP SERVICES. THAT BEING THE POSITION, WE OPINE THAT THE PAYMENT IN LIEU OF FREI GHT AND LOGISTICS SERVICES CANNOT BE RANKED AS CONSULTANCY SERVICES. 10. THE ONLY LEFT OVER COMPONENT OF THE DEFINITION OF 'FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES' TAKEN NOTE OF BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS 'TECHNICAL SERVI CES'. HE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE'S BUSINESS STRUCTURE IS TIME BOUND SERVICE COUPLED WI TH CONTINUOUS REAL TIME TRANSMISSION OF INFORMATION BY USING AND ALSO MAKIN G AVAILABLE ITS TECHNOLOGY IN THE FORM OF SOPHISTICATED EQUIPMENTS AND SOFTWARE ETC. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT : 'IN ORDER TO ENSURE EFFICIENT AND TIMELY DELIVERY A ND TO PROVIDE CONTINUOUS REAL TIME INFORMATION, THE APPELLANT IS REQUIRED TO USE SOPHI STICATED TECHNOLOGY FOR WHICH THE INDIAN ENTITY IS ALSO EQUALLY INVOLVED AND TO WHOM THE APPELLANT IS COMMITTED TO PROVIDING THE REQUISITE SOFTWARE AND EQUIPMENT'. TH E LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ALSO ACCENTUATED ON THE CLAUSE 2 OF THE AGREEMENT WHICH READS AS UNDER: '2. CONTRACTOR SHALL SEPARATELY EXECUTE A TECHNOLOG Y AND SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR THE PROVISION OF COMPUTER EQUIPMENT AND SOFTWAR E SUPPLIED BY SCS. CONTRACTOR SHALL SEPARATELY EXECUTE A TRADEMARK LICENSE AGREEM ENT FOR THE USE OF ANY MARKS OR BRANDS OWNED BY UNITED PARCEL SERVICE OF AMERICA, I NC. THE FEE PAYABLE BY CONTRACTOR UNDER PARAGRAPH 3.1 WILL NOT INCLUDE ANY ROYALTY AMOUNT RELATING TO THE USE OF INTANGIBLE PROPERTY OR INFORMATION.' 11. ON GOING THROUGH CLAUSE 2 OF THE AGREEMENT, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT MENLO INDIA SHALL 'SEPARATELY EXECUTE A TECHNOLOGY AND SOFTWARE LICEN SE AGREEMENT' FOR THE PROVISION OF COMPUTER EQUIPMENT AND SOFTWARE SUPPLIED BY THE ASS ESSEE. IT IS NOBODY'S CASE THAT THE CONSIDERATION IN QUESTION RELATES TO THE SUPPLY OF ANY COMPUTER EQUIPMENT AND SOFTWARE BY THE ASSESSEE TO MENLO INDIA. WE FAIL TO APPRECIATE AS TO HOW THIS CLAUSE 2 MAKES THE SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE AS 'TEC HNICAL'. RATHER CLAUSE 2 MANDATES TO EXECUTE A SEPARATE TECHNOLOGY AND SOFTWARE LICEN SE AGREEMENT FOR THE PROVISION OF COMPUTER EQUIPMENT AND SOFTWARE. HOW IS IT THAT THE CONSIDERATION FOR THE SERVICES CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO A PROPOSED AGREEMENT, WHICH HA S YET TO SEE THE LIGHT OF THE DAY. 12. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ALSO HARPED ON 'TRANSPOR TATION OF TIME SENSITIVE PACKAGES' WITH A VIEW TO BRING THE SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE A SSESSEE WITHIN THE FOLD OF 'TECHNICAL SERVICES'. IN REACHING THIS CONCLUSION THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO RELIED ON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN BLUE DART EXPRESS LIMITED V. JCIT. LET US EXAMINE THE FACTS OF THAT CASE. THE ASSESSEE THERE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80O ITA NO.1400/AHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 PAGE 21 OF 27 IN RESPECT OF ITS FOREIGN EXCHANGE EARNINGS FOR REN DERING TECHNICAL / PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TO A US MULTI INTERNATIONAL COMPANY. DURIN G THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE A.O. REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO FURN ISH THE NATURE OF SERVICES RENDERED AND ALSO THE CALCULATION OF DEDUCTION. THE ASSESSEE DID IT. ON BEING SATISFIED THE A.O. GRANTED DEDUCTION U/S 80O. BY EXERCISING THE POWER U/S 263, THE LEARNED CIT HELD THE ASSESSMENT ORDER TO BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIA L TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE TO THE EXTENT OF GRANTING DEDUCTION U/S 800. WHEN THE MATTER CAME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE ISSUE IS DEBATAB LE AND HENCE OUTSIDE THE AMBIT OF SECTION 263. APART FROM THAT, IT WAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN INTEGRATED AIR AND GROUND TRANSPORTATION OF TIME SE NSITIVE PACKAGES TO VARIOUS DESTINATIONS RENDERING COMMERCIAL SERVICES. IT WAS IN THIS CONTEXT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HELD TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80O. AT THIS JUNCTURE IT WILL BE USEFUL TO NOTE THAT AT THE MATERIAL TIME SECTION 80O PROVIDE D FOR DEDUCTION ON ANY 'INCOME BY WAY OF ROYALTY, COMMISSION, FEES OR ANY SIMILAR PAY MENT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE GOVERNMENT OF A FOREIGN STATE OR A FOREIGN ENTERPRISE IN CONSIDERATION FOR THE USE OUTSIDE INDIA OF ANY PATENT, INVENTION, MODEL, DESIGN, SECRET FORMULA OR PROCESS, OR SIMILAR PROPERTY RIGHT, OR INFORMATION CONCERNING I NDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL OR SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE, EXPERIENCE OR SKILL MADE AVAILABLE OR PR OVIDED OR AGREED TO BE MADE AVAILABLE OR PROVIDED TO SUCH GOVERNMENT OR ENTERPR ISE BY THE ASSESSEE, OR IN CONSIDERATION OF TECHNICAL OR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED OR AGREED TO BE RENDERED OUTSIDE INDIA TO SUCH GOVERNMENT OR ENTERPRISE BY T HE ASSESSEE'. FROM THE ABOVE QUOTED PART OF SEC. 80O, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE D EDUCTION AT THAT TIME WAS AVAILABLE NOT ONLY IN RESPECT OF INCOME AS A CONSIDERATION FO R THE USE OF 'TECHNICAL OR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES' BUT ALSO ANY 'COMMERCIAL.... KNOWLEDGE EXPERIENCE OR SKILL'. THESES TWO SOURCES ARE DISTINCT FROM EACH OTHER AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE EMPLOYMENT OF WORD 'OR' BETWEEN THEM. IN ORDER TO QUALIFY FOR DEDUCTION UNDER THIS SECTION, THE INCOME COULD HAVE RESULTED FROM THE RENDERING OF 'T ECHNICAL OR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES' OR COMMERCIAL KNOWLEDGE, EXPERIENCE OR SKILL ETC. W HEN THE TRIBUNAL IN BLUE DART EXPRESS LIMITED (SUPRA) HELD THE ASSESSEE TO BE ENT ITLED TO DEDUCTION, IT WAS CONSIDERING ALL THE SPECIES OF THE SERVICES SET OUT IN SECTION 80O AND NOT ONLY 'TECHNICAL OR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES'. IT WAS IN THE LIGHT OF SUCH LANGUAGE OF THE PROVISION THAT THE TRIBUNAL HELD THE ASSESSEE TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR RELIEF U/S 80O. WE ARE CURRENTLY DEALING WITH SECTION 9(1)(VII), BEING THE 'FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES' AND THE DEFINITION OF SUCH EXPRESSION IS RESTRICTED ONLY TO 'MANAGERIAL, TECHNICAL OR CONSULTANCY SERVICES' AND DOES NOT HAVE ANY SUCH EL EMENTS AS ARE THERE IN SECTION 80 O. THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF BLUE DART EXPRESS LI MITED (SUPRA) CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUN AL IN DAMPSKIBSSELSKABET AF 1912 V. ADDL. DIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) [(2011) 51 DTR 148] (TO WHICH ONE OF US, NAMELY, THE LD. JM IS PARTY) IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN H ELD THAT THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THAT CASE CANNOT BE UNIVERSALLY APPLIED. DUE TO MATERIAL DIFFERENCE IN THE LANGUAGE OF SECTIONS 9(1)(VII) AND 80O AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, WE HOLD THAT THE DECISION IN BLUE DART EXPRESS LIMITED (SUPRA), CAN NOT BE HELD TO BE SUPP ORTING THE CASE OF THE REVENUE. 13. THE LD. CIT(A) IN REACHING THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE RENDERED 'TECHNICAL SERVICES' ALSO OBSERVED THAT ITS 'BUSINESS STRUCTUR E IS TIME BOUND SERVICE COUPLED WITH CONTINUOUS REAL TIME TRANSMISSION OF INFORMATION BY USING AND ALSO MAKING AVAILABLE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY IN THE FORM OF SOPHISTICATED EQ UIPMENT AND SOFTWARE.' HE WAS SWAYED BY THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE M ANLO INDIA OR THE ULTIMATE ITA NO.1400/AHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 PAGE 22 OF 27 CUSTOMER COULD TRACK THE MOVEMENT OF CARGO WITH THE HELP OF COMPUTERS. WE HAVE NOTED SUPRA THAT THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DID NOT INCLUDE ANY CONSIDERATION FOR THE SUPPLY OF ANY EQUIPMENT TO MA NLO INDIA. NOW WE WILL EXAMINE AS TO WHETHER THE USE OF COMPUTER IN ANY MANNER FOR KNOWING THE LOCATION OF THE CARGO AT A PARTICULAR TIME, CAN BE HELD AS TECHNICAL SERV ICE. 14. EXPLANATION TO SECTION 9(1)(VII) DEFINES THE EX PRESSION 'FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES' AS CONSIDERATION FOR RENDERING 'MANAGERIA L, TECHNICAL OR CONSULTANCY SERVICES'. IT IS SEEN THAT THERE IS NO DEFINITION O F THE TERM 'TECHNICAL SERVICES' IN THE ACT. 15. THE PRINCIPLE OF NOSCITUR A SOCIIS MANDATES THA T THE MEANING OF A WORD IS TO BE JUDGED BY THE COMPANY OF OTHER WORDS WHICH IT KEEPS . THIS RULE IS WIDER IN SCOPE THAN THE RULE OF EJUSDEM GENERIS. IN ORDER TO DISCOVER T HE MEANING OF A WORD WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DEFINED IN THE ACT, THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS APPLIED THE PRINCIPLE OF NOSCITUR A SOCIIS IN SEVERAL CASES INCLUDING ARAVIN DAPARAMILA WORKS V. CIT [(1999) 237 ITR 284 (SC)]. AS NOTED ABOVE THE WORD 'TECHNIC AL' HAS BEEN SANDWICHED BETWEEN THE WORDS 'MANAGERIAL' AND 'CONSULTANCY' IN EXPLANA TION 2 TO SEC. 9(1)(VII) AND NO DEFINITION HAS BEEN ASSIGNED TO THE 'TECHNICAL' SER VICES IN THE RELEVANT PROVISION, WE NEED TO ASCERTAIN THE MEANING OF THE 'TECHNICAL SER VICES' FROM THE OVERALL MEANING OF THE WORDS 'MANAGERIAL' AND 'CONSULTANCY' SERVICES B Y APPLYING THE PRINCIPLE OF NOSTICUR A SOCIIS. IT HAS BEEN HELD ABOVE THAT THE 'MANAGERI AL SERVICES' AND 'CONSULTANCY SERVICES' PRESUPPOSE SOME SORT OF DIRECT HUMAN INV OLVEMENT. THESE SERVICES CANNOT BE CONCEIVED WITHOUT THE DIRECT INVOLVEMENT OF MAN. THESE SERVICES CAN BE RENDERED WITH OR WITHOUT ANY EQUIPMENT, BUT THE HUMAN INVOLV EMENT IS INEVITABLE. MOVING IN THE LIGHT OF THIS RULE, THERE REMAINS NO DOUBT WHAT SOEVER THAT THE TECHNICAL SERVICES CANNOT BE CONTEMPLATED WITHOUT THE DIRECT INVOLVEME NT OF HUMAN ENDEAVOR. WHERE SIMPLY AN EQUIPMENT OR A STANDARD FACILITY ALBEIT D EVELOPED OR MANUFACTURED WITH THE USE OF TECHNOLOGY IS USED, SUCH A USER CANNOT BE CH ARACTERIZED AS USING 'TECHNICAL SERVICES'. 16. COMING BACK TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, E VEN IF WE ACCEPT THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY'S POINT OF VIEW THAT THE COMPUT ER COULD BE USED IN TRACING THE MOVEMENT OF THE GOODS, SUCH USE OF COMPUTER, THOUGH INDIRECT, REMOTE AND NOT NECESSARY, CAN NOT BRING THE PAYMENT FOR FREIGHT AN D LOGISTICS SERVICES WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF 'TECHNICAL SERVICES'. THE ESSENCE OF THE CONSIDERATION FOR THE PAYMENT IS RENDERING OF SERVICES AND NOT THE USE OF COMPUTER. IF INCIDENTALLY COMPUTER IS USED AT ANY STAGE, WHICH IS OTHERWISE NOT NECESSARY FOR REN DERING SUCH SERVICES, THE PAYMENT FOR FREIGHT AND LOGISTICS WILL NOT PARTAKE OF THE C HARACTER OF FEES OF 'TECHNICAL SERVICES'. WE, THEREFORE, REPEL THIS CONTENTION RAISED ON BEHA LF OF THE REVENUE. 17. THUS IT CAN BE NOTICED THAT THE PAYMENT MADE TO THE ASSESSEE IN QUESTION IS NOT A CONSIDERATION FOR MANAGERIAL OR TECHNICAL OR CONSUL TANCY SERVICES. THAT BEING THE POSITION, IT CANNOT FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF SECTIO N 9(1)(VII).' 40. WE MAY ALSO TAKE NOTE OF ANOTHER DECISION OF A COORDINATE BENCH DEALING WITH MATERIALLY SIMILAR QUESTION DEALING WITH TAXABILITY OF INCOME IN THE HANDS OF NON- RESIDENT COMMISSION AGENTS, REPRESENTING INDIAN PRI NCIPAL, IN WHICH SIMILAR ACTIVITIES ITA NO.1400/AHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 PAGE 23 OF 27 WERE SAID TO HAVE BEEN PERFORMED. IN THE CASE OF AR MYESH GLOBAL V. ASSTT. CIT [2012] 51 SOT 564/21 TAXMANN.COM 130 (MUM.), THE COORDINAT E BENCH HAS, INTER ALIA, OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: '16. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AND EXAMINED THE FACTS ON RECORD. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER TRIED TO INVOKE THE DEFINITIONS O F TECHNICAL SERVICES ON THE COMMISSION PAID TO THE FOREIGN COMPANY. THE REASON BEING THAT COMMISSION PAYMENT TO NON-RESIDENT IS NOT COVERED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA), AS IT HAS ONLY APPLICABLE TO ANY INTEREST ROYALTY, FEES FOR TECHNI CAL SERVICES OR OTHER SUM CHARGEABLE UNDER THIS ACT WHICH PAYABLE OUTSIDE INDIA ON WHICH TAX IS DEDUCTIBLE AT SOURCE BUT HAS NOT BEEN DEDUCTED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE OUT A CASE THAT THE COMMISSION PAID IS TEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES' WITHOUT SPECIFYING WHA T ARE THE TECHNICAL/MANAGERIAL SERVICES RENDERED BY THE SAID COMPANY TO THE ASSESS EE. ASSESSEE INDEED ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR PROPAGATION OF ITS HANDICRAFT PROD UCTS WITH THE NON-RESIDENT COMPANY. THE COPIES OF THE AGREEMENT HAVE BEEN PLAC ED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES. THE AGREEMENT CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE NON-RESIDENT COMPA NY WAS TO GET COMMISSION FOR PROMOTING THE PRODUCTS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND RENDERING INCIDENTAL SERVICES ON SALES SUCH AS RECOVERY ETC. FOR DOING EXPORT SALES. IT IS ALSO RESPONSIBILITY OF THE NON- RESIDENT COMPANY TO DISSEMINATE THE INFORMATION AND INQUIRE ABOUT VARIOUS IMPORTERS IN VARIOUS COUNTRIES SO THAT ASSESSEE EXPORTS CAN B E INCREASED. THE AGREEMENT CLEARLY SHOWS THAT NON-RESIDENT COMPANY WAS TO GET THE COMM ISSION FOR PROMOTING THE PRODUCT OF ASSESSEE COMPANY AFTER SALES PROCEEDS AR E RECEIVED. THE DETAILED TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT ARE AS UNDER: 'AGENCY AGREEMENT IN THIS AGREEMENT BETWEEN M/S ARMAYESH GLOBAL, KAMA NWALA CHAMBERS, 2ND FLOOR, SIR P.M. ROAD, FORT, MUMBAI 400 001, INDIA HEREINAF TER REFERRED TO AS 'PRINCIPAL' AND INDIJACK LIMITED, 99 BRECK NOCK ROAD, LONDON N19 5 AB, U.K. HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'AGENT' THE FOLLOWING IS AGREED UPO N: - ARTICLE 1- OBJECT OF AGREEMENT 1.1. THE PRINCIPAL ENTRUSTS THE AGENT WITH THE NON EXCLUSIVE AGENCY FOR THE FOLLOWING CONTRACTUAL TERRITORY (AREA): WORLDWIDE 1.2. THE PRINCIPAL ALSO HAS THE RIGHT TO OPERATE AC TIVELY' IN HE AFOREMENTIONED TERRITORY (AREA). 1.3. THE AGENCY COVERS THE FOLLOWING PRODUCTS: HAND EMBROIDERED PRODUCTS OF ANY AND ALL KINDS. 1.4. THE AGENT COVENANTS AND AGREES TO REPRESENT TH E PRINCIPAL ON A COMMISSION BASIS. ARTICLE 2 DUTIES OF THE AGENT 2.1 IT SHALL BE THE AGENT'S DUTY TO NEGOTIATE CONTR ACTS WITH THE OVERSEAS PARTY. FURTHERMORE, THE AGENT SHALL ACT ON THE PRINCIPAL'S BEHALF IN CONFORMITY WITH ITA NO.1400/AHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 PAGE 24 OF 27 PROVISIONS HEREINAFTER ENUMERATED. THE AGENT SHALL NOT BE AUTHORIZED TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT OR OTHERWISE TO BIND THE PRINCIPAL. THE PR INCIPAL SHALL BE FREE TO CONCLUDE, OR TO REFUSE THE CONCLUSION OF A CONTRACT NEGOTIATED B Y THE AGENT. 2.2 WHILE NEGOTIATING CONTRACTS OF SALE THE AGENT S HALL ACT IN CONFORMITY WITH ALL THE CONDITIONS AND PARTICULARLY OF DELIVERY AND PAYMENT AS FIXED BY THE PRINCIPAL. 2.3 THE AGENT SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR NEGOTIATING WITH ALL PARTIES IN THEIR TERRITORY (AREA). THE AGENT SHALL TRAVEL IN THEIR TERRITORY ( AREA) REGULARLY TO VISIT CUSTOMERS, AND IS BOUND TO KEEP CONCLUDED CONTRACTS SECRET. THE AG ENT SHALL ALWAYS KEEP THE PRINCIPAL INFORMED ABOUT THEIR ACTIVITIES AND SHALL SUPPLY THE PRINCIPAL, AT LEAST ONCE EVERY QUARTER, WITH REPORTS ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT S AND MARKET CONDITIONS IN THE TERRITORY (AREA) AND AT THE SAME TIME, CONVEY TO TH E PRINCIPAL, THE AGENT'S OBSERVATIONS WITH RESPECT TO ACTIVITIES OF COMPETITORS. THE AGEN T SHALL REPORT IMMEDIATELY ON PARTICULAR PROFITABLE BUSINESS POSSIBILITIES AND EX TRAORDINARY EVENTS. 2.4. THE AGENT SHALL ABSTAIN FROM ANY COMPETITION W HATSOEVER AGAINST THE PRINCIPAL AND SHALL NOT PROMOTE COMPETITION BY THIRD PERSONS. IN PARTICULAR, THE AGENT SHALL NOT ACT FOR COMPETITIVE FIRMS AS A COMMERCIAL AGENT, CO MMISSION MERCHANT OR DISTRIBUTOR, NOR SHALL THE AGENT ASSOCIATE DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY WITH COMPETITIVE FIRMS. THE AGENT SHALL NOT, FOR ALL TIME EXPLOIT OR DISCLO SE TO OTHER PERSONS ANY BUSINESS AND PRODUCTION SECRETS OF THE PRINCIPAL THAT HAVE BEEN COMMUNICATED TO THEM OR WHICH THEY HAVE OTHERWISE COME TO KNOW, IRRESPECTIVE OF W HETHER OR NOT THE CONTRACT IS STILL IN FORCE. 2.5 THE AGENT SHALL OBSERVE THE RULES OF FAIR COMPE TITION AND BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY VIOLATION OF THE SAME. 2.6 THE AGENT IS NOT AUTHORIZED TO ACCEPT PAYMENTS DIRECTLY IN THEIR OWN NAME BUT SHALL ASSIST THE PRINCIPAL IN COLLECTING OUTSTANDIN G PAYMENTS. THE AGENT IS ALSO AUTHORIZED TO ACCEPT NOTIFICATION OF DEFECTS BY A C USTOMER, AS WELL AS THE STATEMENT OF A CUSTOMER THAT HE WILL THE GOODS AT THE DISPOSABLE OF THE PRINCIPAL OR ANY SIMILAR STATEMENT BY WHICH THE CUSTOMER EXERCISES HIS RIGHT S RESULTING FROM DEFECTIVE DELIVERY. THE AGENT SHALL IMMEDIATELY II PRINCIPAL AND SHALL SEE TO IT THAT THE NECESSARY EVIDENCE IN FAVOUR OF THE PRINCIPAL IS OBTAINED. 2.7 THE AGENT SHALL ESTABLISH BUSINESS RELATIONS ON LY WITH SUCH CUSTOMERS WHOSE SOLVENCY IS SATISFACTORY TO THE BEST OF THE KNOWLED GE AND BELIEF OF THE AGENT. 17. THUS AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE ABOVE, ALL THE TER MS DO INDICATE THAT THE SAID COMPANY WAS ONLY ACTING AS AN AGENT ON COMMISSION B ASIS AND HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDING ANY MANAGERIAL/TECHNICAL SERVICES. FURTHE R THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD THAT THEY ARE PROVIDING ANY TECHNICAL/MANAGERIAL SE RVICES. THE SAID COMPANY WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR ARRANGING TIMELY PAYMENT FROM THE C USTOMERS AND COMMISSION WAS PAID ONLY AFTER THE SALES AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED. SINC E THE SERVICES WERE RENDERED OUTSIDE INDIA, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 5 CANNOT B E APPLIED TO THE COMMISSION PAID SO AS TO MAKE IT TAXABLE IN INDIA. ITA NO.1400/AHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 PAGE 25 OF 27 18. THIS ASPECT CAN ALSO BE EXAMINED IN ANOTHER WAY AS ALREADY GIVEN A FINDING BY THE BENCH EARLIER AND WHICH IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE, THA T THE FOREIGN COMPANY DOES NOT HAVE ANY PE IN INDIA. THEREFORE, THE COMMISSION PAID TO THE FOREIGN COMPANY WHICH HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS BUSINESS INCOME AND CANNOT BE TAXE D IN INDIA AS PER THE DTAA BETWEEN INDIA AND UK. THE DEFINITION OF 'FEE FOR TE CHNICAL SERVICES' BETWEEN UK AND INDIA DOES NOT INCLUDE MANAGERIAL SERVICES. HOWEVER , NEITHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR THE CIT (A) CONSIDERED THE ISSUE OF DTAA, EVEN THOUGH ASSESSEE MENTIONED THE SAME IN ITS SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES. THE DEFINITION OF TECHNICAL SERVICES AS PER THE INCOME TAX ACT IS AS UNDER: '9.(1) THE FOLLOWING INCOMES SHALL BE DEEMED TO ACC RUE OR ARISE IN INDIA: (I) & (VI )** ** ** (VII) INCOME BY WAY OF FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES PAYABLE BY (A) THE GOVERNMENT; OR (B) A PERSON WHO IS A RESIDENT, EXCEPT WHERE THE FEES ARE PAYABLE IN RESPECT OF SERVICES UTILIZED IN A BUSINESS OR PROFESSION CA RRIED ON BY SUCH PERSON OUTSIDE INDIA OR FOR THE PURPOSES OF MAKING OR EARNING ANY INCOME FROM ANY SOURCE OUTSIDE INDIA ; OR (C) A PERSON WHO IS A NON-RESIDENT, WHERE THE FEE S ARE PAYABLE IN RESPECT OF SERVICES UTILIZED IN A BUSINESS OR PROFESSION CARRI ED ON BY SUCH PERSON IN INDIA OR FOR THE PURPOSES OF MAKING OR EARNING ANY INCOME FROM A NY SOURCE IN INDIA : [PROVIDED THAT NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS CLAUSE SHA LL APPLY IN RELATION TO ANY INCOME BY WAY OF FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES PAYABLE IN PU RSUANCE OF AN AGREEMENT MADE BEFORE THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 1976, AND APPROVED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT.] [EXPLANATION 1.FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE FOREGOING P ROVISO, AN AGREEMENT MADE ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 1976, SHALL BE DEEMED T O HAVE BEEN MADE BEFORE THAT DATE IF THE AGREEMENT IS MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROPOSALS APPROVED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT BEFORE THAT DATE.] EXPLANATION [2].FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CLAUSE, ' FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES' MEANS ANY CONSIDERATION (INCLUDING ANY LUMP SUM CONSIDERA TION) FOR THE RENDERING OF ANY MANAGERIAL, TECHNICAL OR CONSULTANCY SERVICES (INCL UDING THE PROVISION OF SERVICES OF TECHNICAL OR OTHER PERSONNEL) BUT DOES NOT INCLUDE CONSIDERATION FOR ANY CONSTRUCTION ASSEMBLY, MINING OR LIKE PROJECT UNDERTAKEN BY THE RECIPIENT OR CONSIDERATION WHICH WOULD BE INCOME OF THE RECIPIENT CHARGEABLE UNDER T HE HEAD 'SALARIES'. 19. AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE ABOVE SECTION 9(1)(VII) (B), FEE PAYABLE FOR THE PURPOSES OF MAKING OR EARNING INCOME FROM ANY SOURCE OUTSIDE IN DIA IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE DEFINITION. THE AMOUNT HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS BUSI NESS INCOME. SINCE THE SERVICES ARE RENDERED OUTSIDE INDIA, THAT AMOUNT IS NOT TAXA BLE AS IT DOES NOT ACCRUE OR ARISE IN INDIA. THE SAME VIEW WAS CONSIDERED BY THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CEAT INTERNATIONAL S.A. V. CIT237 ITR 859, WHERE CERTAIN EXPORT COMMISSION WAS PAID TO A NON-RESIDENT COMPANY AND IT WAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT IMPART ANY INFORMATION CONCERNING TECHNICAL, INDUSTRIAL, C OMMERCIAL OR SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE EXPORTS OR SKILL, NOR RENDERED ANY MANAGERIAL TECHN ICAL OR CONSULTANCY SERVICES. THE ITA NO.1400/AHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 PAGE 26 OF 27 COMMISSION ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE SERVICES RENDERED CA NNOT BE REGARDED AS ROYALTY OR FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES AND IT WAS HELD THAT THE SAM E WAS NOT TAXABLE UNDER SECTION 9(1)(VII). SIMILAR ISSUE WAS ALSO CONSIDERED BY THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX V. SHERATON INTERNAT IONAL INC.313 ITR 267 WHERE CERTAIN PAYMENTS FOR ADVERTISING, PUBLICITY AND SAL ES PROMOTION SERVICES WERE CONSIDERED AND HELD THAT THOSE PAYMENTS CANNOT BE C ONSIDERED AS EITHER ROYALTY OR FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES. SINCE THE NON-RESIDENT DOES NOT HAVE ANY PE IN INDIA, SUCH INCOME WHICH IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS BUSINESS INCOME WAS NOT TAXABLE IN INDIA.' 41. WE ARE IN CONSIDERED AGREEMENT WITH THE VIEWS S O EXPRESSED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH. IN VIEW OF THESE DISCUSSIONS, AS ALSO BEARIN G IN MIND ENTIRETY OF THE CASE, WE UPHOLD WELL REASONING FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A ) THAT THE COMMISSION PAYMENTS MADE TO THE NON-RESIDENT AGENTS DID NOT HAVE ANY TA XABILITY IN INDIA, EVEN UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE DOMESTIC LAW I.E. SECTION 9. ONCE WE COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE INCOME EMBEDDED IN THESE PAYMENTS DID NOT HAVE ANY TAX IMPLICATIONS IN INDIA, NO FAULT CAN BE FOUND IN NOT DEDUCTING TAX AT SOURCE F ROM THESE PAYMENTS OR, FOR THAT PURPOSE, EVEN NOT APPROACHING THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ORDER UNDER SECTION 195. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE ASSESSEE, FOR THE DETAILED REASONS SET OUR ABOVE, DID NOT HAVE TAX WITHHOLDING LIABILITY FROM THESE PAYMENTS. AS H ELD BY HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GE INDIA TECHNOLOGY CENTRE (P.) LTD. V. CIT [2010] 327 ITR 456/193 TAXMAN 234/7 TAXMANN.COM 18, PAYER IS BOUND TO WITH HOLD TAX FROM THE FOREIGN REMITTANCE ONLY IF THE SUM PAID IS ASSESSABLE TO TA X IN INDIA. THE ASSESSEE CANNOT, THEREFORE, BE FAULTED FOR NOT APPROACHING THE ASSES SING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 195 EITHER. AS REGARDS THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE CBDT CIRCU LAR HOLDING THAT THE COMMISSION PAYMENTS TO NON-RESIDENT AGENTS ARE NOT TAXABLE IN INDIA, NOTHING REALLY TURNS ON THE CIRCULAR, AS DE HORS THE AFORESAID CIRCULAR, WE HAV E ADJUDICATED UPON THE TAXABILITY OF THE COMMISSION AGENT'S INCOME IN INDIA IN TERMS OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AS ALSO THE RELEVANT TAX TREATY PROVISIONS. 4. WE SEE NO REASONS TO TAKE ANY OTHER VIEW OF THE MATTER THAN THE VIEW SO TAKEN BY THE COORDINATE BENCH. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE UPHOLD THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELETE THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE OF RS 12,09,143. 5. GROUND NO. 1 IS THUS ALLOWED. 6. IN THE SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GRIEVANCE: 2. LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRM ING ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES OF RS.1,63,623/-. LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED THE ADDITION AS APPELLANT COMPANY IS IN SAME RATE OF TA X FOR ALL THE YEARS. IT BE SO HELD NOW. 7. SO FAR AS THIS GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS CON CERNED, THE RELEVANT MATERIAL FACTS ARE LIKE THIS. DURING THE COURSE OF THE SCRUTINY ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED A SUM OF RS 1 ,63,623 TOWARDS PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES WHICH INCLUDED EXPENSES TOWARDS PURCHASE OF STORES ITEMS, ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES AND RENT ITA NO.1400/AHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 PAGE 27 OF 27 EXPENSES. THESE EXPENSES WERE DISALLOWED ON THE GRO UND THAT THESE EXPENSES DO NOT PERTAIN TO THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION. AGGRIEVED, ASSES SEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) BUT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SATISFIED AND IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE AP PLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. 9. WE FIND THAT HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF SAURASHTRA CEMENT & CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD VS CIT [(1995) 213 ITR 523 (GUJ)] HAS, INTER ALIA, OBSERVED THAT MERELY BECAUSE AN EXPENSE RELATES TO A TRANSACTION OF AN EARLIER YEAR IT DOES NOT BECOME A LIABILITY PAYABLE IN THE EARLIER YEAR UNLESS IT CAN BE SAID THAT THE LIABILITY WAS DETERMINED AND CRYSTALLIZED IN THE YEAR IN QUESTION ON THE BASIS O F MAINTAINING ACCOUNTS ON THE MERCANTILE BASIS BUT THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT HAS BEEN UPHELD I N THE IMPUGNED ORDER. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN CLAIMED TWI CE BUT THE SHORT GROUND OF DISALLOWANCE IS THAT SINCE THE EXPENSES PERTAIN TO AN EARLIER YE AR, THESE EXPENSES CANNOT BE ALLOWED. THAT APPROACH IS IMPERMISSIBLE IN LAW. IN VIEW OF THESE DISCUSSIONS AS ALSO BEARING IN MIND ENTIRETY OF THE CASE, WE UPHOLD THE PLEA OF THE ASS ESSEE AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE OF RS 1,63,623. 10. GROUND NO. 2 IS ALSO THUS ALLOWED. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED IN THE TER MS INDICATED ABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON THE 15 TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018. SD/- SD/- MAHAVIR PRASAD PRAMOD KUMAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMB ER) AHMEDABAD, DATED THE 15 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2018 COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPOND ENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) DR (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD