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 - 2010 (10) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2010 (10) TMI 1259 - AT - Income Tax

Issues Involved:

1. Entitlement to the benefits of the Indo-UAE Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).
2. Interpretation of the term "liable to tax" under the DTAA.
3. Impact of the absence of actual tax liability in the UAE on treaty benefits.
4. Judicial precedents and international interpretations regarding DTAA provisions.
5. Amendments to the Indo-UAE DTAA and their implications.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to the benefits of the Indo-UAE Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA):

The core issue in this appeal is whether the assessee, a resident of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), is entitled to the benefits of the Indo-UAE DTAA. The Assessing Officer (AO) denied the benefits on the grounds that the assessee, being a proprietary concern, does not fall under the definition of a "chargeable person" as per the Dubai Income Tax Decree, which defines it as a body corporate. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], however, held that the assessee is entitled to the benefits of the DTAA, relying on the precedent set by the ITAT in the case of ACIT v. Green Emirates Shipping & Travels, which established that the right to tax by the other Contracting State suffices for treaty benefits, irrespective of whether that right is exercised.

2. Interpretation of the term "liable to tax" under the DTAA:

The Tribunal explored the interpretation of "liable to tax" within the context of the DTAA. It was noted that the term does not necessarily require actual tax payment in the Contracting State but includes scenarios where the Contracting State has the right to tax the individual or entity. This interpretation aligns with the Tribunal's earlier decision in Green Emirates Shipping & Travels and was further supported by international precedents, such as the Federal Court of Canada's decision in John N. Gladden vs. Her Majesty the Queen, which emphasized that the potential for taxation suffices for treaty applicability.

3. Impact of the absence of actual tax liability in the UAE on treaty benefits:

The AO's argument that the absence of actual tax liability in the UAE disqualifies the assessee from claiming DTAA benefits was rejected. The Tribunal reiterated that actual taxation is not a prerequisite for treaty benefits, as the DTAA aims to prevent both current and potential double taxation. The Tribunal upheld that as long as the UAE has the right to tax the assessee, the DTAA benefits are applicable, regardless of the exercise of that right.

4. Judicial precedents and international interpretations regarding DTAA provisions:

The Tribunal heavily relied on judicial precedents, particularly its own decision in Green Emirates Shipping & Travels, and international interpretations, including the Dutch High Court's decision, to support its stance. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of consistency in interpreting international tax treaties and noted that interpretations by foreign courts should be respected unless contradicted by binding judicial forums or other compelling reasons.

5. Amendments to the Indo-UAE DTAA and their implications:

The Tribunal acknowledged the amendments to the Indo-UAE DTAA, which clarified the definition of "resident" and reinforced the principle that actual taxability in one Contracting State is not a sine qua non for availing treaty benefits in the other. The protocol, effective from April 2008, supports the Tribunal's interpretation that treaty benefits are accessible based on fiscal domicile rather than actual tax payments. This amendment aligns with the Tribunal's approach and provides clarity on the eligibility for treaty benefits.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, affirming that the assessee is entitled to the benefits of the Indo-UAE DTAA. The appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed, reinforcing the interpretation that the right to tax by a Contracting State suffices for treaty benefits, and actual tax liability is not a prerequisite. This judgment aligns with international practices and recent amendments to the Indo-UAE DTAA, promoting consistency and clarity in the application of international tax treaties.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates