Law on non-taxing foreign PE profits no longer good law after insertion of s. 90(3) & Notification dated 28.08.2008 (which has clarificatory effect)

The law laid down by the Courts on the interpretation of the expression “may be taxed” that once the tax is payable or paid in the country of source, then the country of residence is denied of the right to levy tax on would no longer apply after the insertion of s. 90 (3) w.e.f. 1.4.2004, i.e. AY 2004-05 pursuant to which Notification dated 28.08.2008 has been issued. The said Notification is clarificatory in nature and hence the interpretation given by the Central Government through the Notification is effective from 1.4.2004. Also, as the phrase “may be taxed” is not appearing in the statute but is appearing in the DTAA, the interpretation as understood and intended by the negotiating parties should be adopted. Here one of the parties i.e., Government of India has clearly specified the intent and the object of this phrase and the meaning assigned by the Government of India for a phrase or term used in the DTAA notification will prevail. The result is that the business income from the P.E. in Oman and Qatar and also the capital gain from sale of assets in these countries will be chargeable to tax in India

Expl 5 to s. 271(1)(c): Undisclosed income offered in belated return filed u/s 139(4) eligible for immunity from penalty

Explanation 5A to s. 271(1)(c) provides that if during the course of search, the assessee is found to be the owner of any asset or income which has not been shown in the return of income which has been furnished before the date of search and the “due date” for filing the return of income has expired, the assessee is deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income or furnish inaccurate particulars of income and liable for penalty u/s 271(1)(c). In other words, if the income is offered in the return is filed by the “due date”, no penalty can be imposed. The question is whether the “due date” in Explanation 5A encompasses a belated return filed u/s 139(4). The “due date” can be very well inferred as due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(4) because wherever the legislature has provided the consequences of filing of the return of income u/s 139(4), then the same has also been specifically provided. E.g., s. 139(3) which denies the benefit of carry forward of losses u/s 72 to 74A if the return of income is not filed within the time limit provided u/s 139(1). In absence of such a restriction, the limitation of time of “due date” cannot be strictly reckoned with s. 139(1). Even a belated return filed u/s 139(4) will be entitled to the benefit of immunity from penalty (Rajesh Kumar Jalan 286 ITR 276 (Gau) & Jagriti Aggarwal 339 ITR 610 (P&H) & Jagtar Singh Chawla (decisions in the context of s. 54) followed)

The assessee’s claim that the effect of the assignment of the work of customs clearance and installation by Tellabs Denmark to the assessee is that an independent contract came into existence between the assessee and Power Grid and that as both parties were residents, the transfer pricing provisions cannot apply is not acceptable because it is clear from the various agreements that there has been only an assignment of the portion of an onshore contract by Tellabs Denmark to the assessee and not a novation of the portion of the onshore contract between Tellabs Denmark and PGCIL. The consequences in the event of an assignment and novation are different. Since there has only been an assignment and not novation of the contract in the present case, the transaction of assignment between the assessee and Tellabs Denmark cannot be said to be a transaction between two persons either or both of them were not non-residents. It is a very strange situation because if Tellabs Denmark had not assigned the portion of the onshore contract, the transfer pricing provisions would not have been applicable because Tellabs Denmark and PGCIL are not Associated Enterprises. Though the assignment of the portion of the onshore contract has taken place exactly at the same consideration for which Tellabs Denmark agreed to render services to PGCIL, nevertheless, the assignment agreement between Tellabs Denmark and the assessee has all the ingredients of an international transaction within the meaning of s.92 of the Act. However, the ALP will have to be determined afresh because the international transaction is the assignment between Tellabs Denmark and the assessee and not the agreement between the assessee and PGCIL. The TPO should also consider whether as the assignment of the contract had taken place due to business restructuring and on the same terms as agreed between Tellabs Denmark and PGCIL, it could be said that this transaction itself would constitute a comparable uncontrolled transaction (Swarnandhra IJMII Integrated Township (ITAT Hyd) distinguished).