COURT: | ITAT Mumbai |
CORAM: | Pavan Kumar Gadale (JM), Pramod Kumar (VP) |
SECTION(S): | Article 12, Article 14 |
GENRE: | International Tax |
CATCH WORDS: | Fees for Independent Services, Fees for technical services, India-Japan DTAA, legal fees |
COUNSEL: | Dishesh Shrivastava, Dr. S M Lala, Harsh Bafna |
DATE: | December 18, 2020 (Date of pronouncement) |
DATE: | December 23, 2020 (Date of publication) |
AY: | 2014-15 |
FILE: | Click here to view full post with file download link |
CITATION: | |
The AO's refusal to grant foreign tax credit under article 23(2) of India Japan DTAA on the ground that the assessee's income (legal fees) was not taxable in Japan under Article 14 (Independent Personal Services) & that the taxes were wrongly withheld in Japan is not justified. The income could have been taxed under Article 12 (Fees for Technical Services). Even otherwise, one has to take a judicious call as to whether the view adopted by the source jurisdiction of taxing the income is a reasonable and bonafide view, which may or may not be the same as the legal position in the residence jurisdiction. The view of the treaty partner should be adopted unless it is wholly unreasonable or manifestly erroneous |
So far as determination of question as to whether or not the taxation has been done in the source country “in accordance with the provisions of this Convention, may be taxed in … (the source jurisdiction)”, one has to take a judicious call as to whether the view so adopted by the source jurisdiction is a reasonable and bonafide view, which may or may not be the same as the legal position in the residence jurisdiction. While it is indeed desirable that there should be uniformity in tax treaty interpretation in the treaty partner jurisdictions, it may not always be possible to do so in view of a large variety of variations, such as the sovereignty of judicial systems, domestic law overrides on the treaty provisions, the legal framework in which the treaties are to be interpreted, and the judge-made law in the respective jurisdictions etc. In a situation in which a transaction by resident of one of the contracting states is to be examined in both the treaty partner jurisdictions, from the point of view of taxability of income arising therefrom, different treatments being given by the treaty partner jurisdictions will result in incongruity and undue hardship to the assessee.
Recent Comments