{"id":3115,"date":"2011-05-06T23:20:30","date_gmt":"2011-05-06T17:50:30","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=3115"},"modified":"2011-05-06T23:20:30","modified_gmt":"2011-05-06T17:50:30","slug":"acit-vs-clough-engineering-ltd-itat-delhi-special-bench-interest-on-tax-refund-not-effectively-connected-with-pe","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/acit-vs-clough-engineering-ltd-itat-delhi-special-bench-interest-on-tax-refund-not-effectively-connected-with-pe\/","title":{"rendered":"ACIT vs. Clough Engineering Ltd (ITAT Delhi &#8211; Special Bench)"},"content":{"rendered":"<table width=\"150\" border=\"0\" align=\"right\">\n<tr>\n<td><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?dl_id=421\" onclick=\"if (event.button==0) \r\n     setTimeout(function () { window.location = 'http:\/\/itatonline.org\/downloads.php?varname=dl_id=421&varname2=clough_IT_refund_PE.pdf'; }, 100)\" ><strong>Click here to download the judgement (clough_IT_refund_PE.pdf) <\/strong> <\/a><\/p><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<p><strong><br \/>\nInterest on Tax refund not &#8220;effectively connected&#8221; with PE<br \/>\n<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The assessee, an Australian company, had a PE in India from which it carried on business in India. The assessee received <em>interest on income-tax refund of TDS<\/em>. While the assessee claimed that the interest was taxable on <em>gross basis at 15% under Article XI(2)<\/em> of the DTAA, the AO &#038; CIT(A) claimed that the <em>interest was &#8220;directly connected with the PE&#8221; and so assessable under Article VII<\/em>. On appeal, the issue was referred to the Special Bench. HELD by the Special Bench, deciding in favour of the assessee:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Under Article 11(4) of the DTAA, interest from indebtedness &#8220;<em>effectively connected<\/em>&#8221; with a PE of the recipient is taxable under Article 7 and not under Article 11. <strong>Though the interest was connected with the PE in the sense that it has arisen on account of TDS from the receipts of the PE, it was not &#8220;effectively connected&#8221; with the PE either on the basis of asset-test or activity-test<\/strong>. The payment of tax was the responsibility of the foreign company and <strong>the fact that it was discharged by way of TDS did not establish effective connection of the indebtedness with the PE<\/strong>.  In order to be &#8220;effectively connected&#8221;, it is not necessary that the interest income has to be necessarily business income in nature. Even interest assessable under &#8220;other sources&#8221; can qualify. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Under Article 11(4) of the DTAA, interest from indebtedness &#8220;<em>effectively connected<\/em>&#8221; with a PE of the recipient is taxable under Article 7 and not under Article 7. <strong>Though the interest was connected with the PE in the sense that it has arisen on account of TDS from the receipts of the PE, it was not &#8220;effectively connected&#8221; with the PE either on the basis of asset-test or activity-test<\/strong>. The payment of tax was the responsibility of the foreign company and <strong>the fact that it was discharged by way of TDS did not establish effective connection of the indebtedness with the PE<\/strong>.  In order to be &#8220;effectively connected&#8221;, it is not necessary that the interest income has to be necessarily business income in nature. Even interest assessable under &#8220;other sources&#8221; can qualify<\/p>\n<div class=\"read-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/acit-vs-clough-engineering-ltd-itat-delhi-special-bench-interest-on-tax-refund-not-effectively-connected-with-pe\/\">Read more &#8250;<\/a><\/div>\n<p><!-- end of .read-more --><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3115","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-judgements","category-tribunal"],"acf":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3115","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3115"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3115\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3115"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3115"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3115"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}