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 - 1986 (7) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1986 (7) TMI 146 - AT - Income Tax

Issues:
1. Taxability of payments made by Indian companies to a non-resident company for services rendered.
2. Interpretation of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Germany.
3. Classification of payments as royalty or commercial profits.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with three appeals where both the Department and the assessee contested the findings of the Commissioner for the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82. The assessee, a non-resident company based in West Germany, had entered into contracts with Indian companies for rendering engineering services. The dispute arose regarding the taxability of payments made by Indian companies to the assessee. The assessee argued that the payments should not be taxable in India under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Germany as the assessee had no permanent establishment in India.

The Commissioner partially agreed with the assessee, holding that payments from certain Indian companies were fees for technical services and not taxable in India. However, payments from other Indian companies were classified as royalty and deemed taxable. The Department disagreed with the Commissioner's findings, arguing that all payments should be treated as royalty and taxed accordingly.

During the hearing, both parties relied on the decision in Siemens Bktiengeselschaft vs. ITO, where it was established that payments received by the assessee were considered royalty under the IT Act but not under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. The Tribunal concluded that the term "royalty" in the Agreement excluded business receipts and should be interpreted based on the law at the time of the agreement, not subsequent amendments to the IT Act.

Ultimately, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's appeals and dismissed the Department's appeal, ruling in favor of the assessee. The judgment emphasized the distinction between royalty and commercial profits, highlighting the importance of interpreting international agreements in line with the law at the time of their enactment.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates