Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2008 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (6) TMI 288 - AT - Income TaxTaxability of Income u/s 115A r/w s. 44D - Permanent establishment (PE) in India or not - nature of services - business of designing, manufacturing and marketing passive electronic components - whether the entire business receipts of the taxpayer sourced from India, are to be taxed in India on gross basis @ 20 per cent in terms of the provisions of s. 115A r/w s. 44D of the IT Act, 1961 - DTAA between India-Germany - interplay between existence of a PE and taxability as 'royalties and fees for technical services' - subsidiaries in India, namely-Epcos India (P) Ltd. at Nasik and Epcos Ferrites (P) Ltd. at Kolkatta - HELD THAT:- In our considered view, the assessee company did not have any PE in India, much less a PE to which subject 'royalties' and 'fees for technical services' can be attributed. In terms of the India-Germany DTAA, India does not have right to tax these receipts as business profits under art. 7. Of course, in the light of our finding that no revenues earned by the assessee company could be said to be attributable to the PE, even if one was to come to the conclusion that a PE existed, no taxability could arise under art. 7. The assessee has offered the royalties and fees for technical services for taxability in India under art. 12, and, to that extent, admitted tax liability exists. The overzealous approach of the AO has been rightly rejected by the CIT(A). We approve and confirm the stand of the CIT(A), and decline to interfere in the matter. Taxability @ 20 per cent in terms of s. 44D r/w s. 115A in case PE is found to be in existence - we had taken note of the proposition advanced by the Revenue authorities that once art. 12(5) is invoked, all the receipts as 'royalties and fees for technical services' are taxable in India on gross basis under s. 44D, though, as per the provisions of s. 115A, at a lower rate of 20 per cent. The proposition is well settled that nobody can make profit out of self or trade deal with self or earn from self. It is so held it a series of cases, including Sir Kikabhai Premchand vs. CIT [1953 (10) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT], Betts Hartley Huett & Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1978 (4) TMI 58 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] and ABN Amro Bank NV us. Asstt. Director of IT [2005 (8) TMI 294 - ITAT CALCUTTA-E]. It is thus clear that an income of the Indian subsidiaries, on account of having rendered services to themselves, cannot be taxed. There cannot be any income in the hands of this PE, even if that be so, which can be brought to tax. In terms of the indo German tax treaty provisions, it will have to be demonstrated that such royalties and fees for technical services have a live economic nexus with the PE and only then exclusion clause under art. 12(5) as also taxability under arts. 7(1) and 7(2), will come into play. It is only after these royalties and fees for technical services are so included in the business profits attributable to the PE that the provisions of ss. 44D and 115A can be invoked. Therefore, even if we are to hold that the taxpayer had a PE in India, unless there is a categorical finding that entire receipts were attributable to that PE, entire business receipts of the taxpayer sourced from India would not have been taxable in India under art. 7. The provisions of s. 44D and s. 115A do not, therefore, come into play only because there is a PE in India. Taxability of 'royalties and fees for technical services' earned by the assessee company - No dispute that the amounts received by the assessee company on this account meet the definition of 'royalties' and of fees for technical services' under s. 44D which, in turn, refers to Expln. 2 to s. 9(2)(vi) and to s. 9(1)(vii) respectively. Accordingly, the limitation on deductions, as set out in s. 44D, does apply on the facts of the case, and entire amount is to be taxable on gross basis. However, in view of the provisions of s. 115A, the rate of tax on such income will indeed be 20 per cent. Thus, the taxability of amounts received by the assessee company on account of 'royalties' and 'fees for technical services', on the facts of this case and under the Indian IT Act, will be @ 20 per cent on gross basis, That aspect of the matter is, however, academic since we have already held that, on the facts of this case, source country does not have the right to tax income in question, except under art. 12(2) of the tax treaty and at a rate not exceeding 10 per cent. The assessee has already accepted tax liability to that extent, and there is no dispute so far as taxability under art. 12(2) is concerned. In the result, the appeal lied by the AO is dismissed.
|