9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (2) TMI 1517 - AT - Income TaxRectification of mistake - FTS has to be taxed at a concessional rate of 15% of the gross receipts as per the provision of Article 13(2) of the DTAA as against higher rate of tax provided at 20% of gross receipts u/s 115A of the Act - Held that - In the present case there is an agreement between India and U.K. for avoidance of double taxation and therefore the assessee is entitled to plead that taxability has to be as per the provision of the Act or the DTAA whichever is beneficial is to the assessee. Since the taxability of FTS at 15% of the gross receipts as per Article 13(2)(bb)(ii) is more favourable than the provision of section 115A of the Act the FTS in question has to be taxed at 15% on gross basis as per the DTAA. We are of the view that the mistake pointed out in the miscellaneous applications is apparent in the face of the record. Even assuming that the long drawn processing of reasoning is required to decide the miscellaneous application but if ultimately there can be only one possible view then it cannot be said that the power to rectify such mistake is outside the ambit of section 254(2) of the Act. The ld. DR s arguments that the assessee is seeking review of the order of the tribunal is not correct.
Issues Involved:
1. Taxability in India of sums received for services rendered under a contract. 2. Applicability of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and the UK. 3. Time limit for filing a Miscellaneous Application (MA) under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Rectification of apparent errors in the Tribunal's order. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Taxability in India of sums received for services rendered under a contract: The Tribunal examined whether the sums received by the Assessee from GRSE for services rendered under a contract were taxable in India. The services included preparation of concept papers, preliminary project reports, detailed project reports, engineering services, project management services, and post-construction services, performed both in India and the UK. The Tribunal held that the sums received accrued and arose in India and were taxable as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under Article 13(2) of the DTAA between India and the UK. The Tribunal concluded that the requirements of clause (c) of Article 13(4) of the DTAA were satisfied, giving India the right to tax the fee in question. 2. Applicability of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and the UK: The Tribunal referred to Article 13 of the DTAA, which governs the taxation of royalties and fees for technical services. It was noted that under Article 13(2), such fees may be taxed in the contracting state where they arise, but the tax rate should not exceed 15% of the gross amount when paid by the government or a political subdivision, and 20% in other cases. The Tribunal initially applied Section 115A of the Income Tax Act, which taxes FTS at 20% on a gross basis. However, the Assessee argued that under Section 90(2) of the Act, the provisions of the DTAA, being more beneficial, should apply, taxing FTS at 15%. 3. Time limit for filing a Miscellaneous Application (MA) under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The Assessee filed the MA for rectification of errors in the Tribunal's order dated 6.4.2016. The MA was filed on 17.03.2017, after the amendment of Section 254(2) by the Finance Act, 2016, which reduced the time limit for filing an MA from four years to six months. The Tribunal considered whether the amended time limit applied to orders passed before 1.6.2016. Citing the Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision in District Central Co-op. Bank Ltd., Raisen Vs. Union of India, the Tribunal held that the amended time limit could not be applied retrospectively to extinguish vested rights and that the MA was validly filed within the original four-year limit. 4. Rectification of apparent errors in the Tribunal's order: The Assessee contended that the Tribunal should have applied the DTAA rate of 15% instead of the 20% rate under Section 115A. The Tribunal acknowledged that the Assessee had raised this issue in its written submissions but it was not considered in the original order. The Tribunal concluded that this omission constituted a mistake apparent on the face of the record. The Tribunal amended paragraphs 72 and 73 of its order to reflect that FTS should be taxed at 15% on gross receipts as per the DTAA, with the tax liability borne by GRSE to be grossed up accordingly. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the miscellaneous applications, rectifying the order to apply the DTAA's beneficial tax rate of 15% on gross receipts for FTS, and recognized the MA as validly filed within the original four-year limitation period. The decision underscores the importance of applying the most beneficial tax provisions available under domestic law or DTAA and clarifies the retrospective application of procedural amendments.
|
