As regards the quantum of profits attributable to the PE, Article 7 (1) provides for the taxability of profits “directly or indirectly attributable” to the PE. The words “profits indirectly attributable to the PE” incorporates the “force of attraction” principle. To give effect to the “force of attraction” principle, in addition to taxability of income in respect of services rendered by the PE in India, any income in respect of the services rendered to an Indian project, which is similar to the services rendered by the PE is also to be taxed in India in the hands of the assessee – irrespective of whether such services are rendered through the PE or directly by the GE. There cannot be any professional services rendered in India which are not, at least indirectly, attributable to carrying out professional work in India. This indirect attribution is enough to bring the income from such services within ambit of taxability in India. The two conditions to be satisfied for taxability of related profits are (i) the services should be similar or relatable to the services rendered by the PE in India; and (ii) the services should be ‘directly or indirectly attributable to the Indian PE’ i.e. rendered to a project or client in India. The result is that the entire profits relating to services rendered by the assessee, whether in India or outside, in respect of Indian projects is taxable in India.
Assuming the payment for obtaining cricket telecast rights is “royalty”, under the first limb of Article 12(7) of the DTAA, royalties can be said to have arisen in India only if the payer is a resident of India. This condition is not fulfilled as the assessee was a non-resident. Under the second limb of Article 12(7), payments made by a non-resident are deemed to arise in India if the non-resident has a PE in India with which the liability to pay the royalties is incurred and such royalties are borne by the PE. This condition is also not fulfilled because the mere existence of a PE in India does not mean that royalties arise in India. In addition to the existence of PE, it is essential that liability to pay such royalties has been “incurred in connection with” and is “borne by” the PE of the payer in India. There must be an “economic link” between the liability for payment of such royalties and PE. As there was no economic link between the payment of royalties and the PE of the assessee in India, the payments to GCC are not incurred “in connection” with the PE in India. Further, the PE was also not involved in any way with the acquisition of the right to broadcast the cricket matches, nor did the PE bear the cost of payments to GCC. Thus the payments to GCC were not “borne by” the PE in India
the TPO is wrong in adopting the enterprise level margins as the TNMM. U/s 92F (ii) r.w.s. 10B(e), TNMM requires comparison of net profit margins realized by an enterprise from an international transaction(s) and not comparison of operating margins of enterprises
The assessee had included the said capital gains in the P & L A/c and it was not its’ case that same was not includible. The fact that the capital gains was exempt u/s 47(iv) does not mean it can be excluded from the “book profit” because no such exclusion was permitted under the Explanation to s. 115JB. The taxability of capital gain is relevant only for the purpose of computation of income under the normal provisions and has nothing to do with the computation of “book profits”.
In CIT vs. Samsung Electronics 227 CTR 335 the Karnataka High Court has confined its decision to the issue of responsibility of the assessee u/s 195 in deducting tax at source before making remittances to non-residents. Even though the court held in favour of the Revenue on the application of the TDS provisions, the court made it clear in paragraph 78 that it has not examined the question of tax liability of the non-resident assessees in respect of the payments received from assesses in India
The amendment made to s. 32(2) w.e.f AY 2002-03 is substantive. A substantive amendment is normally prospective in operation. S. 32(2) is a deeming provision which by legal fiction provides that the unabsorbed depreciation allowance u/s 32(1) is deemed to be depreciation allowance for the succeeding year(s). A deeming provision has to be strictly interpreted and cannot extend beyond the purpose for which it is intended. S. 32(1) deals with depreciation allowance for the current year and s. 32(2) uses the present tense to refer to allowance to which effect `cannot be’ and `has not been’ given. This indicates that s. 32(2) speaks of depreciation allowance u/s 32(1) for the current year starting from AY 2002-03. Brought forward unabsorbed depreciation of earlier years cannot be included within the scope of s. 32(2). If the intention of the legislature had been to allow such b/fd unabsorbed depreciation of earlier years at par with current depreciation for the year u/s 32(1), s. 32(2) would have used past or past prefect tense and not the present tense. Further, the unabsorbed depreciation for the period from AY 1997-1998 to 1999-2000 has been referred to as “unabsorbed depreciation allowance” and given a special name and cannot fall within s. 32(1) in AY 2002-03
The recorded reason that the violation of s. 11(5) r.w.s. 13(1)(d) by the assessee led the amount of Rs. 1.02 crores to be included in the assessee’s total income is clearly contrary to the legal position that while the assessee may lose exemption u/s 10(23C) for not adhering to the conditions of s. 11(5), this does not result in the said amount being chargeable to tax in the hands of the assessee. The fact that the amount was not invested in the prescribed manner does not mean that it can be assessed as income
The assessee was not rendering simple technical or consultancy services but was rendering specific activities through the PE. Accordingly, Article 12 of the DTAA was not applicable. Income attributable to a PE is assessable under Article 7 of the DTAA. Under Article 7(2), the PE is deemed to be a wholly independent enterprise and under Article 7(3) deduction in accordance with the subject to the law relating to the tax in India is allowable. Since Article 7 of the DTAA comes into play, s. 9(1)(vii) is not applicable. Since Article 7 (2) of the DTAA specifies that the PE in India is to be treated as a wholly independent enterprise in India, ss. 44D and 115A will not apply in so far as they relate to foreign companies.
As per the law laid down in Sudhir Mehta 265 ITR 548 (Bom), where an order is passed as per the prevailing law, a retrospective amendment which comes into force after the date of the passing of the order does not show any mistake in the order.
On merits, under the Act, when a non-resident has operations in India through a presence in India, such presence is to be treated as a “permanent establishment” (“PE”) in India. The PE is to be treated as hypothetically independent of the non-resident . The assets of the PE are also to be recognized as such and the profit or gains on sale of assets of the PE have to be treated as profits of the PE. The gains or losses on sale of PE assets have to be treated as “accruing or arising in India” irrespective of whether the assets were sold in India or outside India. The income can also be deemed to have accrued or arisen in India u/s 9(1)(i) as the rig was part of a “business connection” and “an asset or source of income” in India (principles laid down in Hyundai Heavy Industries 291 ITR 482 followed)