Search Results For: 9(1)(i)


Divya Creation vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE: ,
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 14, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 25, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 195 TDS: Entire law explained on whether payment of commission to non-resident agents for services rendered outside India is liable to tax in India u/s 5(2)(b) and 9(1)(i) on the ground that the "source" of the payment is in India and that the insertion of the Explanation to s. 9(2) with retrospective effect by the Finance Act 2010 makes such payments taxable

The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Model Exims reported in 363 ITR 66 has held that failure to deduct tax at source from payment to non-resident agents, who has their own offices in foreign country, cannot be disallowed, since the agreement for procuring orders did not involve any managerial services. It was held that the Explanation to section 9(2) is not applicable. It was further held that the situation contemplated or clarified in the Explanation added by the Finance Act, 2010 was not applicable to the case of the assessee as the agents appointed by the assessee had their offices situated in the foreign country and that they did not provide any managerial services to the assessee. Section 9(1)(vii) deal with technical services and has to be read in that context. The agreement of procuring orders would not involve any managerial services. The agreement did not show the applicability or requirement of any technical expertise as functioning as selling agent, designer or any other technical services

Sumana Bandyopadhyay vs. DDIT (Calcutta High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE: ,
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 13, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 17, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 5(2)(a): Salary of a non-resident seafarer for services rendered outside India on-board foreign ships accrues outside India and is not assessable in India even if received by the seafarer into the NRE bank account maintained in India by the seafarer. CBDT Circular No. 13/2017 dated 11.04.2017 is clarificatory

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, income by way of salary which became due and has accrued to the assessee, a non-resident, for services rendered outside India and which is not chargeable to tax in India on the “due” or “accrual” basis, can be said to be chargeable to tax on the “receipt” basis merely because the foreign employers, on the instructions of the assessee, have remitted a part of amount of salary to the assessee’s NRE bank account in India?

Cairn UK Holdings Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: March 9, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 10, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 9(1)(i): The capital gains arising on transfer by a foreign company of shares in another foreign company holding assets in India is liable to tax in India. The argument that the transfer is a mere re-organisation of assets within the group and that there is no “real income” is not acceptable. The argument that the India-UK DTAA should be given a “static” interpretation and that the retrospective amendment to s. 9 by the Finance Act 2012 should be ignored is also not acceptable. Where the DTAA provides that the income shall be chargeable to tax in accordance with the provision of the domestic law, the said domestic law has to be the amended law

Coming to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of DIT Vs. New Skies Satellite BV wherein the Hon’ble High court has held that in relation to applicability of Article 3(2) of the relevant DTAAs, that it can apply only to terms not defined in the DTAA. Since the relevant DTAAs in the case before them defined ‘royalty’, Article 3(2) could not be applied. For terms which are defined under the DTAA, there is no need to refer to the laws in force in the Contracting States, especially to deduce the meaning of the definition under the DTAA. Further, the court has held that neither act of parliament supply or alter the boundaries of DTAA or supply redundancy to any part of its. Similarly, according to us, the provisions of DTAA where it simply provides that particular income would be chargeable to tax in accordance with the provisions of domestic laws, such article in DTAA also cannot the limit the boundaries of domestic tax laws. In view of this, we do not find any force in the argument of the assessee and dismiss ground No. 3.12 of the appeal

Geo Connect Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , ,
GENRE: ,
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: January 17, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 30, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2002-03, 2003-04
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 9(1)(i)/ 9(1)(vi)/ 9(1)(vii)/ 40(a)(i): Law on whether payment by the assessee to non-resident parties for “call transmission services through dedicated bandwidth” is assessable as income accruing in India, royalty or fees for technical services and whether a disallowance can be made for failure to deduct TDS explained

In the instant case also, the undersea cable for providing dedicated bandwidth to the assessee was installed beyond the territory of India and no operations were carried out by the non-resident party M/s Kick Communication in India. It was responsible for restoring connectivity and Managing faults in connectivity etc in respect of data transmitted through undersea cable only. Similarly, the operations carried out by M/s. IGTL Solutions are also in USA and not in India. Since operations by both the non-resident parties are carried out beyond the territory of India, we thus hold that section 9(1)(i) is of the Act is not attracted in case of above two non-resident parties

DCIT vs. Welspun Corporation Limited (ITAT Ahmedabad)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , ,
GENRE: ,
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 3, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 18, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 9(1): Important law explained as to the taxability of export sale commission payments received by non-resident agents and the obligation of the assessee to deduct TDS thereon in the context of s. 9(1)(i)/ 9(1)(vii) of the Act and relevant provisions of the DTAA

In the light of the above legal position, what we need to decide at the outset is whether the amounts paid by the assessee to the non-resident agents could be termed as “consideration for the rendering of any managerial, technical and consultancy services”. As we do so, it is useful to bear in mind the fact that even going by the stand of the Assessing Officer, at best services rendered by the nonresident to the agent included technical services but it is for this reason that the amounts paid to these agents, on account of commission on exports, should be treated as fees for technical services. Even proceeding on the assumption that these non-resident agents did render the technical services, which, as we will see a little later, an incorrect assumption anyway, what is important to appreciate is that the amounts paid by the assessee to these agents constituted consideration for the orders secured by the agents and not the services alleged rendered by the agents. The event triggering crystallization of liability of the assessee, under the commission agency agreement, is the event of securing orders and not the rendition of alleged technical services. In a situation in which the agent does not render any of the services but secures the business anyway, the agent is entitled to his commission which is computed in terms of a percentage of the value of the order

Technip Singapore Pte Ltd vs. DIT (Delhi High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , , ,
GENRE: ,
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 2, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 4, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Law on whether "installation or construction activity" constitutes a PE under Article 5 and whether "mobilisation/ demobilisation charges" can be treated as "royalty" u/s 9 (1) (vi) & Article 12 (3) (b) of the DTAA and whether "installation charges" could be treated as "Fees for Technical Services" under Explanation 2 below s. 9 (1) (vii) read with Article 12 (4) (a) of the India-Singapore DTAA explained

Therefore, on two counts the finding of the AAR on FTS cannot be sustained. The first being that the installation services are not incidental to the mobilisation/demobilisation service. The contract was in fact for installation, erection of equipment. Mobilisation/demobilisation constituted an integral part of the contract. Secondly, the AAR has proceeded on a factual misconception that the dominion and control of the equipment was with IOCL. It was erroneously concluded that the payment for such mobilisation/demobilisation constitutes royalty. In that view of the matter, the consideration for installation cannot not be characterized as FTS and brought within the ambit of Article 12.4(a) of the DTAA. The resultant position is that no part of the income earned by the Petitioner from the contract with IOCL can be taxed in India

CIT vs. Farida Leather Company (Madras High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , ,
GENRE: ,
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 20, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 28, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 195/ 40(a)(ia): Commission paid to a non-resident for services rendered outside India is not chargeable to tax in India and is not liable for TDS. Insertion of Explanation 4 to s. 9(1)(i) and Explanation 2 to s. 195(1) by FA 2012 w.r.e.f. 01.04.1962 and insertion of Explanation below s. 9 (2) by FA 2010, w.r.e.f. 01.06.1976 makes no difference to the law

The commission payments to the non-resident agents are not taxable in India, as the agents are remaining outside, services are rendered abroad and payments are also made abroad. The contention of the Revenue that the Tribunal ought not to have relied upon G.E.India Technology’s case, cited supra, in view of insertion of Explanation 4 to Section 9 (1) (i) of the Act with corresponding introduction of Explanation 2 to Section 195 (1) of the Act, both by the Finance Act, 2012, with retrospective effect from 01.04.1962 is not correct. When the transaction does not attract the provisions of Section 9 of the Act, then there is no question of applying Explanation 4 to Section 9 of the Act

Sesa Resources Ltd vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE: ,
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 7, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 25, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 195/ 40(a)(ia): Controversy whether in view of retrospective amendment to s. 195 to provide that s. 195 applies whether or not the non-resident person has a residence or place of business or business connection in India, even commission to non-resident agents for services rendered outside India is liable for TDS u/s 195 and has to suffer disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) to be reconsidered by ITAT

In Gujarat Reclaim & Rubber Products Ltd it has been, inter alia, held that before effecting deduction at source one of the aspects to be examined is whether such income is taxable in terms of the Income Tax Act. This aspect has not been considered by the Tribunal while concluding that the Appellant has committed a default in not deducting the tax at source. As the said learned Division Bench Judgment was not available while passing the impugned order by the learned Tribunal, we find it appropriate, in the interest of justice, to quash and set aside the impugned order of the learned Tribunal to the extent it holds that the Appellant has defaulted in not deducting tax at source and remand the matter to the Tribunal to examine the said aspect afresh in the light of the judgment of this Court after hearing the parties in accordance with law

Siem Offshore Crewing AS vs. ADIT (ITAT Delhi)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 11, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 14, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 9/ 44BB: Income received by a non-resident under a time charter agreement accrues and arises in india even when the vessel and crew are outside the territorial waters of India. Such income is assessable on a presumptive basis u/s 44BB

Gross payments are intricately linked to the services/works rendered by the assessee and arise due to the execution of contract in India, under the terms and conditions of the contract between the assessee and Siem Offshore Inc. The vessel was hired by the contract and it was only for this purpose that the vessel and the crew were involved in the said contract. Thus, it is improper on the part of the assessee to offer to tax its revenues only on a pro-rata basis based upon the number of days the vessel was stationed within 200 nautical miles from the Indian shore line. As the contract for the provision of crew was a continuing contract, it cannot be said that revenues were not earned for the period the vessel was out of the territorial waters of India. Hence, the entire contract amount is to be considered for the purpose of calculating the gross receipts and all receipts received against the execution of the contract would come under the purview of gross receipts. Thus, gross amounts for the months of November 2007, December 2007 and January 2008 are to be included in the gross receipts

GVK Industries Ltd vs. ITO (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: February 18, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 19, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 9(1)(i) & (vii): Concept of “source rule” vs. "residence rule" explained. Definition of expression "fees for technical services" in s. 9(1)(vii) explained with reference to "consultancy" services

The nature of service referred by the NRC, can be said with certainty would come within the ambit and sweep of the term ‘consultancy service’ and, therefore, it has been rightly held that the tax at source should have been deducted as the amount paid as fee could be taxable under the head ‘fee for technical service’. Once the tax is payable paid the grant of ‘No Objection Certificate’ was not legally permissible

Top