2008 (11) TMI 74 - HC - Income Tax

Agreement to provide patents, information regarding certain contract products, assistance for the manufacture etc. royalty, technical assistance fee - taxability in India Tribunal rightly hold that the definition of the term royalty in Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vii) will not apply to the said term as used in DTAA between India & Federal Republic of Germany - income would be royalty but fall within expression industrial or commercial profits within the meaning of Article III of DTAA

Issues Involved:
1. Taxability of amounts received under agreements as "royalty" or "industrial or commercial profits" under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and Germany.
2. Interpretation of "royalty" under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and its applicability under the DTAA.
3. Taxability of "fees for technical services" under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act.
4. Taxability of reimbursement of expenses.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Taxability of Amounts Received as "Royalty" or "Industrial or Commercial Profits":
The Tribunal considered several agreements between the assessee and companies like Siemens, BEL, and BHEL. The Tribunal held that payments described as royalties under these agreements fell within the meaning of "royalty" under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act but were not considered royalties under the DTAA. Instead, they were classified as "industrial or commercial profits." As the assessee had no permanent establishment (PE) in India, these amounts were not taxable in India under the DTAA.

2. Interpretation of "Royalty" Under Section 9(1)(vi) and DTAA:
The Tribunal and the High Court examined whether the definition of "royalty" in Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act applied to the term as used in Article III(3) of the DTAA. The court noted that the term "royalty" was not defined in the DTAA at the relevant time. The court concluded that the income received by the assessee, though classified as "royalty" under the Income Tax Act, should be treated as "industrial or commercial profits" under the DTAA, provided there was no PE in India.

3. Taxability of "Fees for Technical Services":
The Tribunal considered payments under agreements dated 27th July 1975 and 28th October 1975 as "fees for technical services" under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal held that these payments were not "royalty" under the Income Tax Act or the DTAA but were part of "industrial or commercial profits." As the assessee had no PE in India, these amounts were not taxable in India.

4. Taxability of Reimbursement of Expenses:
The Tribunal held that reimbursement of expenses, such as the sum of Rs. 84,246/- received from BHEL, was not taxable. The court cited judgments from the Delhi and Calcutta High Courts, which held that reimbursement of expenses could not be regarded as revenue receipts and, therefore, were not assessable to tax.

Conclusion:
The court answered the reference questions as follows:
1. The definition of "royalty" in Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act does not apply to the term as used in Article III(3) of the DTAA.
2. The sums received from Siemens, BEL, and BHEL would constitute "industrial or commercial profits" under Article III(1) of the DTAA.
3. The sums due from BHEL under the agreements were in the nature of "fees for technical services" within Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act and not "royalty."
4. These sums would constitute "industrial or commercial profits" under Article III(1) of the DTAA.
5. The reimbursement of expenses did not constitute "royalty" and was not chargeable to tax in India.

The court emphasized that the provisions of the DTAA, being more beneficial to the assessee, would prevail over the Income Tax Act, provided there was no PE in India. The court also noted that the explanation inserted by the Finance Act, 2007, to Section 9(1) could not override the DTAA provisions.

← Previous Next →