CIT vs. Eli Lilly (Supreme Court)

TDS on foreign salary is reqd even though assessee is not the payer
 

Where the assessee-employer obtained expatriate-employees from a foreign company and the said employees, continuing to be employees of the foreign company, received salary and allowance in their home country in foreign currency and the question arose whether the assessee was obliged to deduct tax thereon at source u/s 192 and the High Court held that the assessee was not obliged to deduct tax at source on the ground that the payment was by the foreign company and not by the assessee, HELD, reversing the High Court that:

 

(i) Though the payment of salary to the expatriate was made by the foreign company outside India, the TDS provisions did apply as the Act had extra-territorial operation as there was a nexus between the said salary and the rendering of services in India;

 

(ii) U/s 9 (1) (ii), salary received abroad is deemed to arise in India if it is for services rendered in India. This charging provision has to be read with the machinery provision of s.192 and both are part of an integrated code;

 

(iii) S. 192 requires the employer to deduct tax after “estimating” the salary payable to the employee. The act of “estimation” is akin to computation of income. In making the estimate, s. 9 (1) (ii) has to be taken into account;

 

(iv) On facts, as it was found that the salary paid by the foreign company was for services in India the same was deemed to accrue in India u/s 9 (1) (ii) and the assessee ought to have deducted tax u/s 192 though it was not the payer;

 

(v) Levy of interest u/s 201 (1A) is mandatory and has to be calculated from the date of default to the date of payment either by the assessee or the payee-employee; 

 

(vi) However, levy of penalty u/s 271C is not mandatory or compensatory or automatic. Penalty can be levied only if there is no good and sufficient reason for the failure to deduct tax at source. On facts, as the issues were controversial and the assessees acted bona fide, penalty could not be imposed. 

 

Note: The judgement of the High Court is reported as CIT vs. Eli Lilly 297 ITR 300 (Del).