Provisions of Section 195 are not attracted where the payment represents reimbursement of expenses having no element of income.

A.Ys. : 1996-97 to 1999-2000

Date : 20.02.2009

Sections 40(a)(i), 42 and 195.

Issue :

 

@ Provisions of Section 195 are not attracted where the payment represents reimbursement of expenses having no element of income.

@ Where income is computed under the special provisions of Section 42, no disallowance can be made under Section 40(a)(i).

Facts :

Ø The assessee, an Australian company, was engaged in the business of prospecting for and production of mineral oils in India. Since the exploration and production activities carried out by the assessee were covered by Production Sharing Contract (PSC) approved by the Parliament, the assessee was admittedly covered by provisions of Section 42 of the Act.

Ø The assessee made certain reimbursements to its parent company outside India in connection with business activity carried on by the assessee in India. These reimbursements were claimed as expenditure under Section 42. The AO disallowed the claim on the ground that assessee had failed to deduct tax at source.

Ø The assessee submitted before the Tribunal that the expenditure was in connection with petroleum operations and were charged to the assessee on cost-to-cost basis in terms of the PSC. Since the charge was at cost without any mark-up, withholding in terms of 195 was not required. The assessee also argued that Section 42 had an overriding effect and is a separate code by itself and accordingly the general computational provisions of the Act cannot be applied. Reliance in this behalf was made to Supreme Court decision in the case of Enron Oil and Gas India Ltd. [305 ITR 75]. Alternatively, based on judicial precedents it was submitted that there cannot be any withholding on reimbursement where there was no element of income.

Held :

Ø The Supreme Court in Enron (referred above) has analysed the scope of Section 42 and held that the Section is a special provision, is a code by itself for computing the income in respect of the business of prospecting, extraction or production of mineral oils.

Ø In terms of Section 42, any expenditure which is referred to in PSC, whether revenue or capital in nature is allowed as a deduction. The scheme of Section 42 overrides all general computational provisions including Section 40(a)(i). Hence, no disallowance can be made in terms of Section 40(a)(i).

Ø As regards withholding on the payment, the Tribunal held that the auditors of the parent company had certified that such payment represented actual expenses and there was no reason to disbelieve such certificate. Even, PSC provided and regulated that charges shall be equal to the actual cost of providing services and shall not include any element of profit. The Tribunal relied on decisions of CIT vs. Industrial Engg., [202 ITR 1014] (Delhi) and CIT vs. Dunlop Rubber Company, [142 ITR 493] (Calcutta) and held that no income accrued to the parent company from payments representing reimbursement of expenses and hence provisions of Section 195 did not apply.