Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2018 (7) TMI 2122

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... text of incomes by way of dividend and capital gain on sale of shares. It would equally apply even in the situation before us where the application of the provisions of the India-Mauritius Tax Treaty is sought to be applied for considering the taxability of interest income as per Article 11(3)(c) of the India-Mauritius Tax Treaty. Drawing strength from the judgment of Universal International Music B.V [ 2013 (4) TMI 641 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] as relating to the taxability of Royalty income in the context of India-Netherlands Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. In the said decision also, CBDT Circular no. 789 dated 13.04.2000 (supra) was held applicable in the context of Royalty income - even in the context of the impugned interest income, Circular no. 789 dated 13.04.2000 of the CBDT is applicable while applying the provisions of Article 11(3)(c) of the India-Mauritius Tax Treaty - we uphold the plea of the assessee that assessee is the beneficial owner of the impugned interest income on the strength of the Tax Residency Certificate issued by the Mauritian authorities. Element of interest income earned by the assessee from Hyundai Motor India Ltd., the Chennai Bench of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... (13) of the Act dated 28.01.2016, which was in conformity with the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). Pertinently, the exemption was denied on the ground that the requisite conditions prescribed in Article 11(3)(c) of the India-Mauritius Tax Treaty were not fulfilled by the appellant-assessee inasmuch as (i) the interest was not derived by the assessee; (ii) that interest was not beneficially owned by the assessee; and, (iii) that the assessee ought to be carrying on bona fide banking business, which it did not. All the aforesaid issues were taken up by the assessee in appeal before the Tribunal, which vide order dated 16.12.2016 (supra) accepted the pleas of the assessee so far as the first two aforestated conditions were concerned. In other words, the Tribunal held that the interest income in question was derived by the assessee and that it was carrying on bona fide banking business. So however, with regard to the third condition of beneficial ownership , the Tribunal remanded the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with certain directions. This aspect was agitated by the assessee by way of a Miscellaneous Application u/s 254(2) of the Act and vide it .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... DIT vs Universal International Music B.V, [2013] 31 taxman.com 223 which held that a company incorporated under the laws of Netherlands and holding valid Tax Residency Certificate issued by the Netherland authorities was to be construed as the beneficial owner of the Royalty income received from the Indian company and was accordingly held entitled to the benefits of Article 12 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Netherlands. It was pointed out that assessee had obtained Tax Residency Certificate from the Mauritian Revenue authorities, a copy of which was also filed before the DRP. On the aforesaid basis, assessee sought to explain the fulfilment of the condition of beneficial ownership . The DRP, however, rejected the plea of the assessee as according to it, no documents were placed by the assessee to suggest that the interest income in question was beneficially owned by the assessee. As per the DRP, assessee had failed to show the immediate source of funds for making the impugned investment and also the immediate application of the impugned interest income earned by it. Against such observations of the DRP, assessee is in appeal before us. 5. Before us .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... a corollary thereto, disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) was not justified. 6. On the aforesaid basis, it is pointed out that following the decision of Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Hyundai Motor India Ltd. it is, therefore, to be held that assessee was indeed the beneficial owner of the interest income in question also. 7. On the other hand, the ld. DR appearing for the Revenue, has merely reiterated the discussion made by the DRP in its order, which we have already noted in the earlier paras and is not being repeated for the sake of brevity. 8. Article 11(3)(c) of the India-Mauritius Tax Treaty, inter-alia, prescribes that interest income arising in a contracting state shall be exempt from tax in that state provided it is derived and beneficially owned by any bank carrying on a bona fide banking business which is resident of the other contracting state. The limited point before us is as to whether assessee, who is a tax resident of Mauritius, beneficially owns the interest income of ₹ 94,57,45,856/- in question. The other pre-requisites of Article 11(3)(c) of the India-Mauritius Tax Treaty are not for consideration before us as they have already been dealt .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... B.V (supra). The issue before the Hon'ble High Court was relating to the taxability of Royalty income in the context of India-Netherlands Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. In the said decision also, CBDT Circular no. 789 dated 13.04.2000 (supra) was held applicable in the context of Royalty income. Thus, in our considered opinion, even in the context of the impugned interest income, Circular no. 789 dated 13.04.2000 (supra) of the CBDT is applicable while applying the provisions of Article 11(3)(c) of the India-Mauritius Tax Treaty. On this aspect itself we uphold the plea of the assessee that assessee is the beneficial owner of the impugned interest income on the strength of the Tax Residency Certificate issued by the Mauritian authorities. 10. Moreover, in the context of element of interest income earned by the assessee from Hyundai Motor India Ltd., the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in its decision in the case of Hyundai Motor India Ltd. (supra) has already observed that the recipient therein (i.e. the assessee before us), was the beneficial owner of the interest income qua the provisions of Article 11 of the India-Mauritius Tax Treaty. Be that as it may, in view o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates