Director/Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) v. Louis Berger International Inc.

1. FACTS OF THE CASE

Louis Berger supplied technical advice and services to NHAI for road construction and widening. NHAI reimbursed transport and related logistics expenses incurred for its expert team. The AO included those sums in technical-service fees; CIT(A) and the Tribunal excluded them. The Court used ITTA 107/2022, AY 2000-01, as the lead case. The seven appeals cover AY 1998-99, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04. Revenue also argued for 20% rather than 15% tax.

Source: Covers and paragraphs 3–8; PDF pp.1–10

2. DISCUSSION BY THE COURT

The Court reproduced Tribunal reasoning relying on Industrial Engineering Projects, (1993) 202 ITR 1014, and Tejaji Farasram Kharawalla, (1968) 67 ITR 95, on reimbursable expenditure. The quotation also treated infrastructure development as within the relevant industrial policy for section 10(6A), without separate Central approval on those facts. The Court accepted the concurrent finding that NHAI reimbursed expert-team expenses, not technical-service fees, and found no error or substantial question of law in that factual setting.

Source: Paragraphs 9–12; PDF pp.10–13

3. JUDICIAL DECISION

All seven appeals were rejected without costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions were closed.

Source: Paragraph 13 and closing direction; PDF p.13

4. OUTCOME

Revenue’s challenge failed and the favourable CIT(A)/Tribunal treatment remained intact. The decision rests on the identified expense reimbursements and the concurrent findings; it is not a universal exemption for every payment labelled reimbursement.

Source: Paragraphs 10–13; PDF pp.12–13

5. Expert Comments

AKHB editorial analysis, distinct from the Court’s findings.

The character of the receipt follows the found facts

The accepted finding connects NHAI’s payments to expenses actually incurred on the expert team’s transport and logistics. For comparison with another engagement, the agreement, underlying costs and reimbursement evidence matter. The mere invoice label does not reproduce the factual foundation on which these concurrent orders survived.

Source: PDF p.8 · PDF p.9 · PDF p.12 · PDF p.13

Do not import figures from the quoted authorities

The monthly fee and commission percentages in the reproduced precedents describe other taxpayers. They are not Louis Berger’s remuneration or a cap on its reimbursement. Likewise, Revenue’s 20%-versus-15% submission is an argument recorded here, not a freestanding statement of the rate applicable to every technical-services contract.

Source: PDF p.9 · PDF p.10 · PDF p.11

The section 10(6A) passage has historical conditions

The quoted Tribunal analysis discusses the specified agreement period and the 1991 industrial policy’s coverage of infrastructure. It is not an unconditional exemption for all infrastructure contractors. The High Court’s immediate conclusion is that the factual reimbursement findings and cited precedents disclosed no substantial question of law; current statutory or treaty treatment requires separate verification.

Source: PDF p.11 · PDF p.12 · PDF p.13