9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (7) TMI 420 - AT - Income TaxPermanent establishment of assessee in India - profit attribution to that permanent establishment - Held that - Assessee does not have a permanent establishment in India. Therefore the income of the assessee is not chargeable to tax with respect to sale of the hardware products in India. Income arising to the assessee from sale of software and sale of subscription is set aside to the file of the Ld. assessing officer to decide the issue in view of the decision of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT versus Infra soft Ltd (2013 (11) TMI 1382 - DELHI HIGH COURT ). Income from the provision of the services such as installation warranty services and professional fees are not fees for technical services in terms of article 12 (4) of the treaty and therefore it is not chargeable to tax in India. TDS credit - Held that - Assessing officer is directed to grant credit of the tax deducted at source of withholding tax certificate produced by the assessee if they are found in order. Interest chargeable u/s 234A and 234B - Held that - Assessing officer is directed to re-compute the interest chargeable under section 234A of the income tax act after granting credit of tax deduction at source claimed by the assessee if found in order. The Ld. and assessing officer is further directed to not to charge interest under section 234B of the income tax act on the income of the assessee which is subject to withholding tax.
Issues Involved:
1. Permanent Establishment (PE) in India under the India-Netherlands Treaty. 2. Attribution of profits to the PE. 3. Taxation of income from the sale of software as royalty. 4. Taxation of income from the sale of subscriptions as royalty. 5. Taxation of income from the provision of services as royalty and fees for technical services (FTS). 6. Application of Section 44DA for taxing income without allowing for expenditure incurred outside India. 7. Credit for taxes deducted at source. 8. Levy of interest under Section 234A and 234B. 9. Initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c). Detailed Analysis: 1. Permanent Establishment (PE) in India: The primary issue was whether the activities of NetApp India constituted a PE for NetApp B.V. in India under the India-Netherlands Treaty. The Tribunal concluded that NetApp India, a subsidiary of NetApp B.V., did not constitute a PE in India. The Tribunal emphasized that the Indian entity was a service provider and did not have the authority to conclude contracts on behalf of NetApp B.V. The Indian entity's activities were considered preparatory and auxiliary, and there was no fixed place of business or dependent agent PE under Article 5 of the Treaty. 2. Attribution of Profits to the PE: Given the Tribunal's finding that there was no PE in India, the issue of attributing profits to the PE became moot. The Tribunal dismissed the grounds related to profit attribution as they were contingent on the existence of a PE. 3. Taxation of Income from Sale of Software as Royalty: The Tribunal referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Director of Income Tax vs. Infrasoft Ltd. to determine whether the income from the sale of software constituted royalty. The Tribunal remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer to verify if the software licensing agreement in the present case was similar to the one in the Infrasoft case. If so, the income would not be considered royalty. 4. Taxation of Income from Sale of Subscriptions as Royalty: Similar to the software income issue, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer to determine if the subscription income should be treated as royalty by comparing it with the Infrasoft case. 5. Taxation of Income from Provision of Services: The Tribunal held that the payments for installation, warranty, and professional services did not qualify as FTS under Article 12(4) of the Treaty. These services did not "make available" technical knowledge, experience, or skill to the Indian customers, and hence, were not taxable as FTS. 6. Application of Section 44DA: The Tribunal did not specifically address the application of Section 44DA, as the primary issue of PE was resolved in favor of the assessee, making the application of Section 44DA irrelevant. 7. Credit for Taxes Deducted at Source: The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the tax deduction at source (TDS) certificates provided by the assessee and grant credit for the taxes deducted accordingly. 8. Levy of Interest under Section 234A and 234B: The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the interest under Section 234A after granting credit for the TDS. For Section 234B, the Tribunal held that no interest should be charged if the income was subject to withholding tax. 9. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings under Section 271(1)(c): The Tribunal dismissed this ground as premature since the primary issue of tax liability was resolved in favor of the assessee. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that NetApp B.V. did not have a PE in India and hence, its income from the sale of hardware, software, subscriptions, and services was not taxable in India under the India-Netherlands Treaty. The Tribunal remanded some issues back to the Assessing Officer for verification and directed appropriate adjustments for TDS credits and interest computations.
|
