Transcript ITAT DECISION IN - IFA)
INTERNATIONAL FISCAL ASSOCIATION – WESTERN REGIONAL CHAPTER
RECENT CASE LAWS
9
TH
JUNE, 2007
By Sushil Lakhani
CONTENTS
ISHIKAWAJIMA-HARIMA HEAVY INDUSTRIES CO. LTD. (288 ITR 408 (SC)) SET SATELLITE (SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD.
(MUMBAI, ITAT)
9TH JUNE, 2007 RECENT CASE LAWS BY SUSHIL LAKHANI IFA - WRC 2
ISHIKAWAJIMA-HARIMA HEAVY INDUSTRIES CO.LTD.
(288 ITR 408 (SC))
FACTS
Assessee a member of a Consortium of six parties.
Consortium entered into a contract with Petronet LNG Limited (‘PLL’) in 2001 for setting up LNG Terminal.
Contract was signed in India.
Role/responsibility and consideration of each consortium member provided separately.
9TH JUNE, 2007 RECENT CASE LAWS BY SUSHIL LAKHANI IFA - WRC 4
FACTS
(Cont …)
Scope of work for IHI was categorized into the following categories: o o o o o Onshore supply Onshore services Construction and erection Offshore supply Offshore services IHI established a Project Office in India for execution of project
9TH JUNE, 2007 RECENT CASE LAWS BY SUSHIL LAKHANI IFA - WRC 5
FACTS
(Cont …)
IHI has a Permanent Establishment (‘PE’) under Article 5(3) of the India-Japan tax Treaty.
The property in goods which were the subject matter of offshore supply passed on high seas outside India.
The offshore services were also rendered outside India.
9TH JUNE, 2007 6 RECENT CASE LAWS BY SUSHIL LAKHANI IFA - WRC
ISSUE BEFORE ITAT
Whether the AAR’s Ruling in 271 ITR 193 was correct ?
That is:
• Whether any part of consideration for off shore supplies taxable in India ? And • Whether consideration for services are taxable in India?
off-shore
9TH JUNE, 2007 RECENT CASE LAWS BY SUSHIL LAKHANI IFA - WRC 7
AAR Ruling (271 ITR 193)
AAR’s view on offshore supplies
Taxability under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’)
Sale takes place outside India – property in goods passes outside India However, certain operations – signing of contract, receiving, unloading, storing and transporting, paying demurrage charges, etc. performed in India.
9TH JUNE, 2007 RECENT CASE LAWS BY SUSHIL LAKHANI IFA - WRC 8
AAR Ruling (271 ITR 193)
(Cont…)
As such, income deemed to accrue or arise in India to the extent attributable to operations in India.
Taxability under the India-Japan tax treaty
Supply of equipment directly or indirectly attributable to PE in India.
Profits from offshore supplies thus, taxable in India
9TH JUNE, 2007 RECENT CASE LAWS BY SUSHIL LAKHANI IFA - WRC 9
AAR Ruling (271 ITR 193)
(Cont…)
•
AAR’s view on offshore services
–
Taxability under the Act & the India Japan tax treaty
o Offshore services services – Fees for technical (‘FTS’) under the Act as well as under the India-Japan tax treaty o Offshore services were not effectively connected to PE
9TH JUNE, 2007 10 RECENT CASE LAWS BY SUSHIL LAKHANI IFA - WRC
AAR Ruling (271 ITR 193)
(Cont…)
•
AAR’s view on offshore services
(Cont…) o Offshore services, thus, taxable at the rate of 20 percent on a gross basis as per Article 12 of the India-Japan tax treaty
9TH JUNE, 2007 RECENT CASE LAWS BY SUSHIL LAKHANI IFA - WRC 11
IHI’S CONTENTIONS BEFORE SC Re: Off-shore Supply:
The title to goods passed outside India payment made outside India – income from offshore supply not taxable in India Signing of contract in India not relevant as the converse would not have made an assessee not taxable
9TH JUNE, 2007 RECENT CASE LAWS BY SUSHIL LAKHANI IFA - WRC 12
IHI’S CONTENTIONS BEFORE SC Re: Off-shore Supply:
Performing of certain activities in India (loading, unloading, inland transportation) would not render any part of off-shore supplies liable to tax in India.
The position same under the India-Japan Treaty.
9TH JUNE, 2007 13 RECENT CASE LAWS BY SUSHIL LAKHANI IFA - WRC
IHI’S CONTENTIONS BEFORE SC Re: Off-shore Services:
Not taxable under the Treaty as though effectively connected to PE not attributable to PE
9TH JUNE, 2007 RECENT CASE LAWS BY SUSHIL LAKHANI IFA - WRC 14
DEPARTMENT’S CONTENTIONS BEFORE SC
Each component of the contract was directly relatable to the overall performance Contract was indivisible; breach of any of the terms would impact the entire contract The turnkey project constituted a PE under the India-Japan tax treaty & as such Explanation I to Section 9(1)(i) applicable.
Turnkey project was executed in India in its entirety
9TH JUNE, 2007 15 RECENT CASE LAWS BY SUSHIL LAKHANI IFA - WRC
DEPARTMENT’S CONTENTIONS BEFORE SC
Offshore supply and offshore services were interlinked with the entire project Entire income attributable to the project and deemed to arise in India by virtue of section 9(1)(i) of the Act Income from offshore supply and services taxable in India
9TH JUNE, 2007 16 RECENT CASE LAWS BY SUSHIL LAKHANI IFA - WRC
SUPREME COURT RULING
Far-reaching observations made by the Supreme Court:
Regarding Turnkey contract:
The mere fact that contract is a turnkey contract would not itself mean that for the purpose of taxability the entire contract must be considered to be an integrated one;
9TH JUNE, 2007 RECENT CASE LAWS BY SUSHIL LAKHANI IFA - WRC 17
SUPREME COURT RULING
(Cont…)
The very fact that supply and service segments were specified separately indicates that the liability of assessee would also be different; the The payment for offshore supply and services was clearly demarcated – cannot be held to be a complete contract that has to read as a whole.
9TH JUNE, 2007 RECENT CASE LAWS BY SUSHIL LAKHANI IFA - WRC 18
SUPREME COURT RULING
(Cont…)
9TH JUNE, 2007 Regarding Income business connection: arising from
Although section 9 of the Act raises a legal fiction, it must be construed having regard to the object it seeks to achieve (Maruti Udyog Vs. Ramlal (2 SCC 638 followed) There is a distinction between existence of a business connection and income accruing or arising from such business connection
RECENT CASE LAWS BY SUSHIL LAKHANI IFA - WRC 19
SUPREME COURT RULING
(Cont…)
Mere existence of connection may not result in income accruing or arising in India; a business Existence of a Permanent Establishment does not necessarily mean existence of business connection Where severable parts of a composite contract are performed in different jurisdictions, apportionment should be applied to determine the profits principle taxable in of each Jurisdiction.
9TH JUNE, 2007 RECENT CASE LAWS BY SUSHIL LAKHANI IFA - WRC 20
SUPREME COURT RULING
(Cont…)
Regarding situs of the source of income:
The source of income need not be the place where income accrues or arises (CIT Vs.
Ahmedbhai Umerbhai (18 ITR 472 (SC)) & CIT Vs. Kirk (1900) AC 588 (HL), Anglo French Textile Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (25 ITR 27 (SC)), Carborandum Co. Vs. CIT (108 ITR 335 (SC), ITO Vs. Sriram Bearings Ltd. (224 ITR 724 (SC)).
9TH JUNE, 2007 RECENT CASE LAWS BY SUSHIL LAKHANI IFA - WRC 21
SUPREME COURT RULING
(Cont…)
Supreme Court’s view on offshore supplies:
Taxability under the Act
Only such part of the income as is attributable to the operations carried out in India can be taxed in India. The territorial
nexus doctrine
plays an important part in assessment of tax.
The mere fact that contract is a turnkey contract would not itself mean that for the purpose of taxability the entire contract must be considered to be an integrated one
9TH JUNE, 2007 RECENT CASE LAWS BY SUSHIL LAKHANI IFA - WRC 22
SUPREME COURT RULING
(Cont…)
Sale takes place outside India – property in goods passes outside India and payment outside India The fact that the contract was signed in India is of no material consequence PE doesot constitute Business Connection as PE not a cause of the income.
9TH JUNE, 2007 RECENT CASE LAWS BY SUSHIL LAKHANI IFA - WRC 23
SUPREME COURT RULING
(Cont…)
Income from taxable in India offshore supply not
Taxability under the India-Japan tax treaty
Paragraph 6 of the Protocol to the India-Japan tax treaty not fulfilled as PE did not play any part in off-shore supplies.
9TH JUNE, 2007 RECENT CASE LAWS BY SUSHIL LAKHANI IFA - WRC 24
SUPREME COURT RULING
(Cont…)
Supply of equipment not directly/ indirectly attributable to PE in India – PE not involved in operations in offshore supply connection with Income from offshore supplies not taxable in India
9TH JUNE, 2007 RECENT CASE LAWS BY SUSHIL LAKHANI IFA - WRC 25
SUPREME COURT RULING
(Cont…)
Supreme Court’s view on offshore services
Taxability under the Act
For being covered U/s. 9(1)(vii) two conditions to be fulfilled: Services should be rendered in India; and Services should be utilised in India.
(“Section 9(1)(vii) must be read with Section 5 which takes within its purview the territorial nexus”)
9TH JUNE, 2007 RECENT CASE LAWS BY SUSHIL LAKHANI IFA - WRC 26
SUPREME COURT RULING
(Cont…)
Sufficient nexus between the rendering of services and territorial limits of India necessary to make the income from offshore services taxable Even after insertion of (vi) & (vii) in Section 9, the provisions of 9(1)(i) continue to given such cases (VDO Tachometer Werke Vs. CIT (117 ITR 804 (Kar)).
9TH JUNE, 2007 RECENT CASE LAWS BY SUSHIL LAKHANI IFA - WRC 27
SUPREME COURT RULING
(Cont…)
Location of source of income in India would not render sufficient nexus to tax the income from that source To be covered in Sec. 9(1)(vii) the services should have a “live link” with India.
Entire contract would not be attributable to the operations in India assuming the offshore elements form an integral part of the contract
9TH JUNE, 2007 RECENT CASE LAWS BY SUSHIL LAKHANI IFA - WRC 28
SUPREME COURT RULING
(Cont…)
Entire services rendered outside India – not deemed to accrue or arise in India (Query:
Whether the position of taxability under the Act of off-shore services would change after insertion of the new Explanation added to Section 9 w.e.f. 1.6.76
?)
9TH JUNE, 2007 RECENT CASE LAWS BY SUSHIL LAKHANI IFA - WRC 29
SUPREME COURT RULING
(Cont…)
Taxability under the Japan Tax Treaty
Comments on Page 409 of Klaus Vogel approved by SC – only profits which are economically attributable to the PE i.e.
those which arise from PE’s activities taxable in source country.
Art 12(5) services would apply as offshore “effectively connected” to the PE.
9TH JUNE, 2007 RECENT CASE LAWS BY SUSHIL LAKHANI IFA - WRC 30
SUPREME COURT RULING
(Cont…)
Article 7(2) r.w. Para 6 of the protocol of the India-Japan tax treaty applicable – only profits directly or indirectly attributable to its PE taxable in India Offshore services outside India were rendered – PE did not have any role to play in such services – therefore not attributable and hence not taxable in India
9TH JUNE, 2007 RECENT CASE LAWS BY SUSHIL LAKHANI IFA - WRC 31
SUPREME COURT RULING
(Cont…)
The term “effectively connected” & “attributable to” are to be construed differently the PE are – even if offshore services & “connected” Offshore services inextricably linked to the offshore supply – must be considered in the same manner
9TH JUNE, 2007 RECENT CASE LAWS BY SUSHIL LAKHANI IFA - WRC 32
SET SATELLITE (SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD.
(MUMBAI, ITAT)
FACTS
Assessee is a Singapore resident engaged in business of broadcasting television channels.
It has a subsidiary in India viz. SET India Pvt.
Ltd. which is assessees’ “dependent agent” (“DA”) for sale of airtime.
Assessee pays the DA commission for its services.
arms’ length
9TH JUNE, 2007 RECENT CASE LAWS BY SUSHIL LAKHANI IFA - WRC 34
FACTS
(Cont …)
The AO applied Circular No. 742 & taxed 10% of gross receipts.
The Commissioner (Appeals) held that payment of arms’ length commission to DA extinguishes the tax liability of the DA’s PE (DAPE) as well
9TH JUNE, 2007 RECENT CASE LAWS BY SUSHIL LAKHANI IFA - WRC 35
ISSUE BEFORE ITAT
Once the DA is paid “arms’ length price”, can any further income, other than remuneration paid to DA, be attributed to PE & be taxed in India?
(Note: Examination of taxability under the Act & exact quantification of amount taxable in India have been remitted back to AO)
9TH JUNE, 2007 RECENT CASE LAWS BY SUSHIL LAKHANI IFA - WRC 36
ASSESSEES’ ARGUMENT
1.
Taxability of exceed beyond a foreign principal cannot arms’ length profits earned by a DA as: • PE is nothing but the DA-both are one entity & not two separate entities.
• Art. 7(2) attributes to the PE only those profits which the PE would make if it were a distinct & separate enterprise
9TH JUNE, 2007 RECENT CASE LAWS BY SUSHIL LAKHANI IFA - WRC 37
ASSESSEES’ ARGUMENT
(Cont …)
2. Payment of arms’ length compensation to DA extinguishes tax liability of foreign principal relying on: • Commentaries of Philip Baker, Prof. Roy Rohatgi & Prof. David Davies.
• AAR ruling in Morgan Stanley & Co. (284 ITR 260) • ITAT Ruling in DCIT Vs. Roxon (103 TTJ 891) • Circular No. 23 of 1969 • Circular No. 5 of 2004 for BPO companies.
9TH JUNE, 2007 RECENT CASE LAWS BY SUSHIL LAKHANI IFA - WRC 38
ASSESSEES’ ARGUMENT
(Cont …)
3. SC Ruling in UOI Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan (263 ITR 743) relied to advance the proposition that the purpose of treaties is to allocate taxing Jurisdictions.
9TH JUNE, 2007 RECENT CASE LAWS BY SUSHIL LAKHANI IFA - WRC 39
ITAT’S VIEW
1.
“Single taxpayer approach” doesnot result in fair division of taxing rights between the two Jurisdictions as it ignores assets & risks that relate to the activity in source Jurisdiction.
2. DA & DAPE are two separate enterprises.
9TH JUNE, 2007 RECENT CASE LAWS BY SUSHIL LAKHANI IFA - WRC 40
ITAT’S VIEW
(Cont …)
3. DAPE is distinct from DA as: • Treaty provides that “the enterprise shall be deemed to have a PE” if it has a DA in the other state.
• Treaty doesnot state that the DA shall be deemed to be the PE of the enterprise.
9TH JUNE, 2007 RECENT CASE LAWS BY SUSHIL LAKHANI IFA - WRC 41
ITAT’S VIEW
(Cont …)
4. Rationale for a DAPE is simple: • DA, being “
economically
” & “
financially
” dependent on the foreign principal, is integrated into principal’s business to a large extent.
the • Would be too easy to circumvent PE taxation if tax position is to vary based only on whether or not the business activities are carried out directly or through an agent.
9TH JUNE, 2007 RECENT CASE LAWS BY SUSHIL LAKHANI IFA - WRC 42
ITAT’S VIEW
(Cont …)
5. Treaty, thus, provides that profit attributable continue to remain same whether the F.E. carries on business directly or through a DA.
6. Further, Art. 7(2) provides that part of profits of the foreign enterprise shall be taxable in source country & are not the same as DA’s profits FE’s profits.
9TH JUNE, 2007 43 RECENT CASE LAWS BY SUSHIL LAKHANI IFA - WRC
ITAT’S VIEW
(Cont …)
7.
Circular No. 5 of 2004 & Circular No. 23 of 1969 not relevant as these circulars do not deal with taxability of a dependent agent.
8.
AAR’s decision in Morgan Stanley (284 ITR 260) not binding on ITAT.
9TH JUNE, 2007 RECENT CASE LAWS BY SUSHIL LAKHANI IFA - WRC 44
ITAT’S VIEW
(Cont …)
9. Approved the views of: • Australian Tax Office Guidelines titled “
Attribution of profits to a Dep. Agent PE
”.
• OECD’s Final Report in “
Attribution on Profits to a PE
”
9TH JUNE, 2007 RECENT CASE LAWS BY SUSHIL LAKHANI IFA - WRC 45
ITAT’S VIEW
(Cont …)
10.Two steps process to compute profits attributable to a DAPE.
• Hypothesise the PE as a distinct & separate enterprise i.e. allocate assets & liabilities to PE on the basis of FAR analysis.
9TH JUNE, 2007 RECENT CASE LAWS BY SUSHIL LAKHANI IFA - WRC 46
ITAT’S VIEW
(Cont …)
• Determine the hypothetical revenues of the DAPE on the basis of functional analysis after deducting arms’ length compensation to DA & other expenses incurred.
(
Over-simplistic example (with some arithmetical errors) given by ITAT on page 18 of its Order with a caveat that FE can claim further adjustment for activities outside India
)
9TH JUNE, 2007 RECENT CASE LAWS BY SUSHIL LAKHANI IFA - WRC 47
ITAT’S CONCLUSION
Held that part of profits of FE taxable in India as it has a DAPE in India.
Upheld action of AO in taxing 10% of gross receipts as no further details provided.
9TH JUNE, 2007 RECENT CASE LAWS BY SUSHIL LAKHANI IFA - WRC 48
ITAT’S CONCLUSION
(Cont …)
Issue regarding taxability under the Act & regarding applicability of Circular No. 23 of 1969 remitted back to CIT(A) for adjudication.
(Passing comment that the Circular No. 23 of 1969 & Circular No. 5 of 2004 donot deal with dep. Agent.)
9TH JUNE, 2007 RECENT CASE LAWS BY SUSHIL LAKHANI IFA - WRC 49
CONTENTIONS NOT RAISED BY ASSESSEE BEFORE ITAT
Art. 5(4) & Art. 7(2) refer to “activities” (of agent) & thus the profits attributable should be only those that relate to “activity” (of an agent)
9TH JUNE, 2007 RECENT CASE LAWS BY SUSHIL LAKHANI IFA - WRC 50
IMPACT OF SC DECISION IN HYUNDAI CASE?
SC has on Page 19 of its order in Hyundai’s case reiterated that hypothetical profits can be attributed to PE only if between FE & PE were not at the transactions arms’ length.
9TH JUNE, 2007 RECENT CASE LAWS BY SUSHIL LAKHANI IFA - WRC 51