9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 650X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Newco Executive Education institution which ultimately transformed into UC Berkeley Centre for Executive Education. We, therefore, do not have any doubt that the applicant is an educational institution. Shri Sachit Jolly the learned counsel appearing for the applicant also invited our attention to page No. 5, which has been issued by the Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue Service, Philadelphia PA-19255 which is the certificate issued showing that the applicant is an exempt organization under Section 501(C)(3) of US Internal Revenue Code, or a religious or apostolic organization under Section 501(d). The learned counsel points out that this will be clear to support his contention that the applicant is an educational cum charitabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a, JJ. For The Applicant : Mr. Sachit Jolly, Advocate For The Department : Ms Nausheen J. Ansari,CIT-DR,AAR,ND, Mr. S.S.Negi, JCIT-DR, AAR, ND, Mr. Sanjay Kumar, JCIT ORAL RULING ( By Sirpurkar J.) This application is made by UC Berkeley Center for Executive Education also known as CEE (for short), which is claimed to be a California based non-profit public benefit corporation formed for the purpose of operating executive education progammes. It is claimed in the application that CEE develops and delivers open enrolment and customs programmes for business executives in United States of America and also internationally. It is pointed out that the application was originally incorporated under the name of Newco Executive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out in clause 1 of the Agreement. A look at that schedule suggests that 4 Modules were to be provided them from Module-1 to Module-4. They were to be executed in different manners for a limited period. 6. The applicant was also to develop the instructional material including work sheets etc. and was to arrange its faculty whereas the Northwest had agreed to market the programme in India. The intellectual property rights were to remain with the applicant. It is further clarified in the agreement that the inter se relationship between the applicant and Northwest was that of independent contractor and not a joint venture. A consideration was to be passed by the applicant. On this backdrop, the applicant raised the following questions:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y an educational institution the consideration for those services would not be exempted from the tax liability. We have gone through the lengthy submissions by the Revenue. However, we do not find any substantial opposition in their contentions, shortly stated the contentions can be viewed as under:- (a) That the applicant has not submitted any evidence establishing it to be an educational institution. It is reiterated by the Revenue that there is no evidence on record to establish that the corporation is operating as an educational institution. The Revenue is viewing the applicant to be a mere facilitating agent. (b) The second objection raised by the Revenue is that the applicant does not have the faculty of its own for running ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Singapore. After consideration all the aspects, the Authority took the view that these were the educational services provided by an educational institution and as such are exempted from tax under article 12(5)(C) by the Indo-Singapore DTAA. We have already pointed out that the clause 12(5)(C) in Singapore Treaty and 12.5(C) in US Treaty are identical. 11. In fact, according to us, the question is clearly covered in the aforementioned Ruling by this Authority. However, we must consider the serious objections raised by the Revenue Department to the effect that the applicant is not an educational institution and that it is merely a facilitating institution. 12. We do not see any basis for these objections. The applicant has provided al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts behalf. We are quite convinced by this argument and we would choose to reject the objections by the Revenue. The other insignificant objection by the Revenue was that these professors who come for a short period are well accommodated by Northwest India which creates a Permanent Establishment of the applicant in India. We have mentioned this objection only for being rejected. The Authority in its Ruling in Eruditus had also held that there not be a Permanent Establishment even if the Faculty is provided by the non-tax resident INSEAD. We would choose to go by that finding. 14. In short, the answers to question No. 1 would be that the programme fee received by the applicant from Northwest would be governed by Article 12 of the India-US ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
