Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

L. In case of any defaultby the customer, I will be consistently following up on the same with the customer.

M. On receipt of payment, the sales cycle end there".

2.3 The assessee's primary contention is that RDPL has performed all the functions of distribution in case of "Dollar" based sales with the help of wide network of '"Channel partners" to whom commission is paid. It is the contention of the assesses that channel partners in conjunction with the vendors perform all the critical steps in distribution. The assessee claims that it is the customers who decide the billing modalities in INR or USD and RDPL does not have a role in such decision making. This argument of the assessee is not acceptable. To understand the distribution of functions between various slake holders like customer, vendor, channel partners and distributors, it is better to look at the INR sales before going to Dollarsales. Each entity has specific role to play in the supply chain management. The role of customer who wants to purchase goods and the role of vendor/manufacturer/supplier need not be discussed here. The distributor (REDIL in case of INR sales) and channel partners both perform distinct functions in the procurement, and IT (TP) A No.14/Chny/2020 M/s.Redington Distribution Pte. Ltd.

:: 11 ::

supply. One can't be replaced by another. The channel partner who acts like a sub- distributor is compensated in the form of commission for such function. It can't be stated that in case where channel partner is involved REDIL has not performed any functions. Nor can it be said that channel partner can replace sales/marketing team of REDIL. Hence, the functions of the 'Dollar Team' and their role in sales proved. The sale may happen with or without the channel partner. But the argument of the AO based on the evidence is that the functions otherwise performed by the REDIL in respect of INR sales are continued to be performed by REDIL through their 'Dollar Team'. This is the reason why the business is done in India and PK is attributed in India. Considering this it can be stated that the existence of channel partners and payment of commission to the channel partners in no way interferes with the findings of the AO and the existence of PR in India. 2.4 The assesses also contended in its submissions dated 30.08.2019 before the Panel that business models of REDIL and RDPL are different, it is contended that customer base of RDPL consists of entities like SE7 units, customers with duty scripts etc., who wish to avail duty benefits on import while REDIL caters to the requirements of local INR purchases. In this regard, it is seen that many customers who are big technology companies have composite requirements. They need purchases in INR for normal units and Dollar purchases for SEZ and duty free units. Further, even if the customer base are different, the role played by 'Dollar Team' cannot be overlooked. Further the assessee admitted that both RDPL and REDIL work through channel partners and commission is paid by them. The assessee contended that 'Dollar Team' performs only fulfillment activity and do not finalize the prices or sign-off the orders. But this assertion is not based on evidence. The AO has put on record sufficient evidence to show that 'Dollar Team' performed all the functions of distribution what the rest of REDTL performed. The AO demonstrated that RDPL establishment in Singapore was bare minimum with least deployment of assets and skeletal staff has no wherewithal to perform the distributor function; Hence, we are unable to accept the arguments forwarded by the assessee.

Hence the argument that no evidence was found for FY.2010-11 is not acceptable. RDPL had not filed any return of income for the A.Y. 2011-12.

11. What was the evidence for existence of channel partners?

i. Though the appellant claimed that business was carried out through channel partners of RDPL, no evidence like party wise ledger account of channel partners, address and assessment particulars of the channel partners, bank account copy of RDPL, reflecting the payment made to · channel partners were given. This was discussed clearly at paragraph 23.

business (B2B) model wherein, the company purchase from the vendors and sales to the customers through channel partners/sub- distributors/multi brand retailers, etc., who will then sell to end-users. The assessee had also an indirect business model i.e. selling the products through channel partners, retailers, who in turn sell such products to the end-users. The main customers of the assessee company in India are Cognizant Technology, Sify Technology, Zoho Corporation, etc. In respect to business in India, the profile of the customers who have business contracts with the assessee includes major Software Development companies and Information Technology companies which have had their units in SEZ/STPIs and also non-SEZ Units and non-STPI Units. Further, the assessee had obtained the support from its holding company M/s.REDIL, referred to as 'Dollar Team' for rendering services to its customers in India.