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

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (11) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2022 (11) TMI 1345 - AT - Income Tax


Issues Involved:
1. Permanent Establishment (PE) status under Article 5 of the India-Germany DTAA.
2. Taxability of revenue earned from contracts.
3. Applicability of Section 44BBB and Section 44DA of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
4. Application of Force of Attraction Rule.
5. Levy of interest under Section 234B and 234C.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Permanent Establishment (PE) status under Article 5 of the India-Germany DTAA:

The assessee, a non-resident corporate entity from Germany, contested the decision of the departmental authorities that it had a PE in India under Article 5 of the India-Germany DTAA. The dispute centered around the revenue earned from a contract with Andhra Pradesh Transmission Corporation (AP Transco). The assessee argued that it did not have a PE in India and that the income should be taxed as Fee for Technical Services (FTS) under Article 12 of the DTAA at a rate of 10%. The Assessing Officer, however, held that the assessee had a PE in India and taxed the income at 20% under Section 44DA read with Section 115A. The Tribunal, referencing its decisions in previous years (2001-02 to 2005-06), concluded that the assessee did not have a PE in India for the AP Transco project and that the Force of Attraction Rule did not apply. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition, allowing ground nos. 1 and 2 in favor of the assessee.

2. Taxability of revenue earned from contracts:

For the revenue earned from Jaiprakash Industries Ltd., the assessee claimed it should be taxed under Section 44BBB as income from business activities related to civil construction and turnkey power projects. The Assessing Officer rejected this claim, asserting that the income should be taxed under Section 44DA at 20%. The Tribunal, while not accepting the applicability of Section 44BBB, held that the revenue earned was in the nature of FTS and should be taxed at 10% in the absence of a PE. This decision was based on the Tribunal's findings in previous assessment years. Ground no. 3 was partly allowed, directing the Assessing Officer to apply a 10% tax rate.

3. Applicability of Section 44BBB and Section 44DA of the Income-tax Act, 1961:

The Tribunal examined the applicability of Section 44BBB and Section 44DA concerning the contracts with Jaiprakash Industries Ltd. and Jaiprakash Power Ventures Ltd. It was determined that Section 44BBB did not apply, but the revenue should be taxed as FTS under Article 12 of the India-Germany DTAA at a 10% rate. The Tribunal found no evidence of a PE in India for these contracts and directed the Assessing Officer to apply the 10% tax rate. This decision was consistent with the Tribunal's earlier rulings.

4. Application of Force of Attraction Rule:

The Tribunal addressed the applicability of the Force of Attraction Rule to the revenue earned from the contracts with AP Transco and Jaiprakash Industries Ltd. It was concluded that the Force of Attraction Rule did not apply, as there was no PE involved in these transactions. This decision was based on the Tribunal's previous findings, which were reiterated in the current judgment. Ground no. 4 was decided in favor of the assessee.

5. Levy of interest under Section 234B and 234C:

The assessee challenged the levy of interest under Section 234B and 234C. The Tribunal, referencing its earlier decisions, held that interest under these sections is not chargeable where tax is deductible at source. This ground was decided in favor of the assessee, consistent with the Tribunal's previous rulings.

Conclusion:

Both appeals were partly allowed, with the Tribunal directing the Assessing Officer to apply a 10% tax rate on the revenue earned from the contracts, rejecting the applicability of the Force of Attraction Rule, and ruling against the levy of interest under Sections 234B and 234C. The order was pronounced in the open court on 16th November 2022.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates