Facts:
• The Taxpayer was appointed as arranger by an Indian bank for mobilising deposits from NRI customers and to act as a collecting bank for receiving and handling application forms under “India Millennium Deposit” (IMD) scheme.The services included; canvassing potential investors; printing marketing material and distributing them; assisting customers in filing the application and obtaining necessary documents; ensuring compliance with local laws; ensuring that payment instruments and applications are correct; issuing acknowledgements; preparing daily remittance schedules and consolidated statements etc.
• The Taxpayer in turn appointed sub-arrangers for mobilising IMDs both in and outside India.The sub-arrangers work was in the nature of soliciting NRI customers for IMD of Indian banks and then to remit the amount received by them to the designated banks.
• The Tax Authority disallowed the payments of subarranger fees on the grounds that such payments to non-residents were in the nature of FTS on which tax was required to be withheld under the Act.
Held:
• From the nature and scope of services rendered by the sub-arrangers, it was clear that no technical knowledge, expertise or qualification was required. Convincing potential customers and helping them to fill requisite forms and coordinating transfer of funds, cannot be considered as a “technical service”.
• The services rendered by the sub-arrangers were only a small part of the management of the IMD issue. Sub-arrangers were not involved in the “management” of IMD issue. The Taxpayer was simply acting as commission agent or broker for which it was entitled to a particular rate of commission. Sub-arranger obligation was a part of overall obligation of IMDs and hence services cannot be regarded as fees for managerial services.