Login ID:

Forgot Password?
New user? Free SignUp
Enrolment Forms
Online Payment Polls
My Library
The Journal of the BCAS-the BCAJ has an online Avatar.

Lecture Meeting Filing of Income-tax Return - Post Pone

International Tax & Finance Conference, 2015

Intensive Workshop on Internal Financial Control as required by Companies Act, 2013

Lecture Meeting by Dr. Vandana Shiva

Lecture Meeting Statutory Audit Finalisation under the Companies Act, 2013 - Important matters

WORKSHOP on The Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015

More Events...

Useful Links
Bulletin Board
Chat Room

BCA Journal
June 2015 Journal Index
Jun 15

  Archives   Subscribe Now  
    Latest Publication
Price: Rs.75/-
Other Publications

Hovels India Ltd. v. ACIT

Month-Year : Aug - 2011
Author/s : (2011) TII 96 ITAT-Del.-ITNL [BCAJ]
Title : Hovels India Ltd. v. ACIT
Details :


Taxpayer (ICO) was engaged in the business of manufacturing electrical products including switchgears, electric fans, cables and wires. It paid to US-based company (USCO), a specialist in product testing and certification for electrical products, for getting its products tested and getting certification. This certification was necessary for enabling ICO to export its products to the USA and European Union (EU).

No tax was deducted at source on the ground that since testing of products was done in a laboratory outside India, no income had accrued or arisen to USCO in India. Further the payment was not in the nature of fees for included services in terms of India-USA DTAA. The Assessing Officer took the view that as the testing and certification of ICO’s products was required to be utilised in the manufacturing activity of ICO, the payment was covered by source rule of section 9(1)(vii) as ‘fees for technical services’ (FTS) and) the services and payments would also be covered under ‘fees for included services’, in terms of Article 12(4)(b) of the DTAA. The expenditure was disallowed u/s. 40(a)(i).

ICO also contended that the service was rendered and utilised outside India. The certification was required to enable ICO to export its products to the USA and EU and such certification was not required for sale of goods in India and the source rule exception u/s. 9(1)(vii)(b) would come into play.

The Assessing Officer rejected these contentions and the order of the AO was confirmed by the CIT(A). On appeal to the Tribunal.


To seek exemption u/s.9(1)(vii)(b), onus was on ICO to prove that the services were utilised either in a business carried on outside India or for the purposes of making or earning any income from any source outside India.

The AO has not been able to bring anything on record to prove that the services have not been utilised outside India. He has not been able to rebut the representation of the taxpayer that certificates were required only for purposes of export. and that such certificates were utilised for export; and that they were not utilised for its business activities in India. Hence, onus which lies on the assessee was discharged. No tax withholding was required and disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i) was not sustainable.

Back to Content Type Listings

Resource Material  
Articles and Features  
  Modifications Applicable to Private Companies unde... 
Drafts, Forms  
Tribunal Board  
Budget 2014  
Vice-President Communique  
Holidays for BCAS  
Annual Report  
BCAS Brochure  
Recent Case Laws  
Supreme Court cases  
Tribunal-Rept. Cases  
Advance ruling  
High Court Cases  
Tribunal - International Tax Decision  
Thought Mailer  
BCAS Hall Booking  
Privacy Policy
Food for Thought