Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (10) TMI 471 - AT - Income TaxFees for Technical Services – Article 12 Indo-German DTAA – Establishment of PE - Whether the assessee's supervisory services are in the nature of Fees for Technical Services (FTS) taxable u/s 9(1)(vii)/Article 12 of India-German DTAA or whether the services constitute a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India taxable under S.9(1)(i)/Article 7 read with Article 5 of the India-German DTAA – Held that:- For Article 12(5) to apply, the condition precedent is for the assessee to have a Permanent Establishment through which its activities are carried out and such a condition is not met - Article 12(5) which takes the scope of services out of FTS and into Article 7 read with Article 5 does not apply to the assessee's case - the basis for AO's invoking the provisions of Article-5 of DTAA is on the basis of the fact that three of the technicians deputed for supervising the activities in the case of M/s. Jindal Steel Power Ltd., has stayed in India exceeding 183 days and filed their returns with ITO (International Taxation), Mumbai - Had the AO examined the total period of deputing technicians to India and also examined whether establishment where assessee had any 'permanent place' to supervise the activities, then, issue could be examined in the light of service PE considerations - AO only undertook the issue of stay of technicians in India cannot be considered for examining the 'permanent establishment' of assessee in its supervising work - AO has not made out any case for invoking Article-7 of DTAA. Supervisory activities have to be in connection with the non-resident’s “building site, construction or assembly project” - the receipts of the assessee are in the nature of ‘FTS’ and do not fall under Article 7 read with Article 5, there is no need to adjudicate this contention - it is incorrect to aggregate all contracts of the foreign company in India and consider it as one - Unless otherwise linked with each other, contracts should be individually assessed with respect to the duration test – relying upon ADI T V/s. Valentine Maritime (Mauritius) Ltd. [2010 (4) TMI 1 - ITAT BOMBAY-L] - the assessee's supervisory activities do not constitute a Permanent Establishment in India under the provisions of the Indian Income Tax Act as well as Article 5 of the India-German Treaty - Assessee should be assessed for its supervisory activities under Article 12 of the India-Germany DTAA – Decided in favour of assessee. Reopening of assessment u/s 147 – Held that:- DRP has erred in considering that the case is covered under clause(b) of Explanation-2 to section 147 - This is not a case of 'understating the income' as the same income received by the assessee was brought to tax at a different rate - There is no difference between the returned income and assessed income, up to the draft order stage - It is also not a case where assessee claimed excess loss or deduction or allowance - The issue was considered by the DRP as 'excess relief in return' - However, the word 'relief' cannot be used in the context of availing lesser rate of tax - If one compares the sub-clause-ii in clause (c) of Explanation-2, it specifically states that 'income has been assessed to a low rate' and sub-clause-iii specifically for a situation where such 'income has been made subject of excessive relief' under this Act - under clause-(c) where assessment has been made, reopening can be done where income has been assessed to a low rate or excessive relief was allowed - Assessee has offered the income under provisions of section 9(1)(vii) offering gross receipts to tax at 10% of the gross receipts whereas the AO considered the income at 42.23% on the net income. The DRP has wrongly considered assessee's case as a case of claiming excess relief in the return which situation was not considered in clause (b) of the provisions of section 147 - assessee's contention that neither clause (b) nor clause (c) of the Explanation would apply is a valid contention - reopening of assessment on the facts of the case is not justifiable - the contention of the assessee is accepted that the amount can only be brought to tax as fees for technical services and cannot be considered as business income – Decided in favour of assessee.
|