9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (11) TMI 863 - AT - Income TaxIncome accrued in India - Royalty receipt - consideration received from Indus Tower Ltd., for supply of software - considering Indian subsidiaries as PE of the assessee - India-Isreal DTAA - Held that - As discussed by the Tribunal in assessee s own case, we hold that amount received by the assessee are not in the nature of royalty as per Article 12 of India-Isreal DTAA is not taxable as such in India, but has to be treated as business profit of the assessee. Treating the DTAA India as an independent agent PE of assessee - Held that - The Tribunal in assessee s own case in A.Y. 2006-07 clearly held that assessee had no permanent establishment in India. It is further noted that TTI India has entered into the agreement on independent basis. No facts have been discussed by the Ld. CIT(A) to show that how the judgment of Rolls Royce PLC was applicable in the preference of the decisions of the Tribunal rendered in assessee s own case. Under these circumstances, we do not find any reason to deviate from the order of the Tribunal of the earlier years. TTI India cannot be treated as assessee s dependent agent PE in India, hence, the amount so received is not taxable at the hands of the assessee. The grounds are allowed. Non giving credit of the tax deducted at source - Held that - We direct the AO to verify the factual figures and after verification allow necessary credit for the tax deducted at source.
Issues Involved:
1. Treatment of consideration received for software supply as royalty. 2. Consideration of Indian subsidiaries as a permanent establishment (PE) of the assessee. 3. Credit for tax deducted at source (TDS). Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Treatment of Consideration Received for Software Supply as Royalty: The assessee, an Israeli company, supplied software to Indus Towers Ltd. and provided IT support services through its Indian subsidiary. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated the consideration received for the software supply as royalty, taxable under Article 12 of the India-Israel Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) upheld this view. The Tribunal examined the facts and previous judgments in the assessee’s own case for the assessment years (A.Y.) 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, and 2012-13, where it was held that such amounts did not constitute royalty. The Tribunal reiterated that the software supply did not transfer any copyright or intellectual property rights to the buyer, but only allowed the use of the software in machine-readable form. The Tribunal noted that the software license granted was non-exclusive, royalty-free, and did not permit reverse engineering or modification of the software. The Tribunal also referenced the agreement clauses, which confirmed that the intellectual property rights remained with the assessee, and the software was restricted to designated sites. The Tribunal emphasized that the source code was not transferred to Reliance under an escrow agreement, making the AO's concerns about source code transfer irrelevant. The Tribunal concluded that the consideration received for software supply was not royalty under Article 12 of the India-Israel DTAA but should be treated as business income, following the precedent set in previous years. 2. Consideration of Indian Subsidiaries as a Permanent Establishment (PE) of the Assessee: The AO considered the Indian subsidiary (TTI Team Telecom Software Private Limited) as a dependent agent PE of the assessee in India. The Tribunal reviewed previous judgments, particularly for A.Y. 2006-07, where it was held that the assessee did not have a PE in India. The Tribunal found no new facts or changes in circumstances that would warrant a different conclusion. The Tribunal noted that the transactions had been consistently accepted by the Revenue in previous years and that the Indian subsidiary operated independently. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the Indian subsidiary could not be treated as a dependent agent PE of the assessee, and the amount received was not taxable in India on this basis. 3. Credit for Tax Deducted at Source (TDS): The assessee claimed that the AO did not give credit for the tax deducted at source amounting to ?68,78,174/-. The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the factual figures and allow the necessary credit for the TDS after verification. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, holding that the consideration received for software supply was not royalty but business income, and that the Indian subsidiary was not a dependent agent PE of the assessee. The Tribunal also directed the AO to verify and allow the credit for TDS. The order was pronounced in the open court on 13/11/2018.
|
