Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

Home › AAR › In Re Tiong Woon Project & Contracting (Pte) Limited (AAR)

In Re Tiong Woon Project & Contracting (Pte) Limited (AAR)

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 30, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 26, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to download the file in pdf format
CITATION:
An installation project which does not last more than 183 days in a fiscal year is not a "Permanent Establishment" and the business profits are taxable only in Singapore under Article 7(1) of the India-Singapore DTAA

Since the project executed by the applicant in India for Brahmaputra continued only for 178 days in a fiscal year and as the duration of the project is less than 183 days in a fiscal year, Permanent Establishment of the applicant cannot be constituted in India for the FY 2012-13 as per the provisions of Article 5.3 of the India-Singapore DTAA. Hence, the business profits accruing or arising to the applicant by way of the execution of the project under reference is taxable only in the country where the applicant is a resident, as per Article 7.1 of India-Singapore DTAA.

Related Posts:

  • RDS Project Limited vs. ACIT (Delhi High Court) It is true that during the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer had required the assessee to disclose information pertaining to the share applicants, the amounts and their source, the mode in which payment was made and confirmatory letters together with PAN details. But it is also trite…
  • DCIT vs. JSW Limited (ITAT Mumbai) In the light of the above discussions, we are of the considered view that rather than taking a pedantic view of the rule requiring pronouncement of orders within 90 days, disregarding the important fact that the entire country was in lockdown, we should compute the period of 90 days by…
  • UOI vs. Exide Industries Limited (Supreme Court) The leave encashment scheme envisages the payment of a certain amount to the employees in lieu of their unused paid leaves in a year. The nature of this payment is beneficial and proemployee. However, it is not in the form of a bounty and forms a part of the conditions…
  • CIT vs. Reliance Industries Limited (Supreme Court) The High Court has noted the finding of the Tribunal that the interest free funds available to the assessee were sufficient to meet its investment. Hence, it could be presumed that the investments were made from the interest free funds available with the assessee
  • PCIT vs. IVen Interactive Limited (Supreme Court) It is required to be noted that notices under Section 143(2) of the 1961 Act are issued on selection of case generated under automated system of the Department which picks up the address of the assessee from the database of the PAN. Therefore, the change of address in the database…
  • Snowtex Investment Limited vs. PCIT (Supreme Court) The amendment which was brought by Parliament to the Explanation to Section 73 by the Finance (No 2) Act 2014 was with effect from 1 April 2015. In its legislative wisdom, the Parliament amended Section 43(5) with effect from 1 April 2006 in relation to the business of trading in…

Related Judgements

  1. Consulting Engineering Corporation vs. JDIT (ITAT Delhi) 

    (i) The benefit of the ratio of first part of Morgan Stanley and Co. Inc. (2007) 292 ITR 416 (SC) is not available for the assessee as on careful examination of activities and modus operandi of the assessee, we have … Consulting Engineering Corporation vs. JDIT (ITAT Delhi)…
  2. Birla Corporation Limited vs. ACIT (ITAT Jabalpur) 

    On the question as to whether the said receipt for installation, commissioning or assembly etc activity can be assessed as “fees for technical services”, it is seen that the DTAA has a general provision in Article 12 for rendering of technical services and a specific provision in Article 5…
  3. Swiss Re-insurance Company Limited vs. DDIT (ITAT Mumbai) 

    The AO is not right in (i) treating the assessee as having a Dependent Agency Permanent Establishment; (ii) laying down that the assessee has a business connection in India; (iii) treating SRSIPL as service PE and (iv) treating SRSIPL as Agency PERead more ›
  4. ITO vs. Nokia India Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Delhi) 

    Services can be said to ‘make available’ technical knowledge etc, where such technical knowledge is transferred to the person utilizing the service (i.e. the appellant in the instant case) and such person is able to make use of the technical knowledge etc, by himself in his business or for…
  5. Alabra Shipping Pte Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Rajkot) 

    The benefit of treaty protection is restricted to the amount of income which is eventually subject matter of taxation in the source country. This is all the more relevant for the reason that in a situation in which territorial method of taxation is followed by a tax jurisdiction and…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*