he first question relates to taxability of amount received on release and relinquishment of tenancy rights, whereas, the second question relates to capital gains on sale of 596 shares and as such do not involve determination of fair market value. As regards the amount received on release of tenancy rights, the tenancy rights are in respect of real estate and would be gains derived from alienation of immovable property. As the immovable property is situated in India, the gains are taxable in India under Article 13.1 of the DTAA.
Centrica India Offshore Private Ltd., (AAR) – It was held that personnel seconded to the Taxpayer, a group company in India, did not become its employees in the absence of an obligation undertaken by the Taxpayer to pay employment costs of such personnel. This was held despite the fact that the Taxpayer exercised control and supervision and was also responsible for the work of the personnel.
Que.No.1 The payment received / receivable by the applicant in connection with IVTC Services are taxable as FTS under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. The exception provided under section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act is not available to the applicant. Que.No.2&3 The payments received / receivable in connection with the cost incurred and recovery of administrative cost for and on behalf of X India are chargeable to tax as FTS under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act.
XYZ Ltd. (AAR) – The payment received / receivable by the applicant in connection with IVTC Services are taxable as FTS under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. The exception provided under section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act is not available to the applicant. The payments received / receivable in connection with the cost incurred and recovery of administrative cost for and on behalf of X India are chargeable to tax as FTS under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act.
Capital gain on buy-back of shares is taxable under Section 46A of the Act in the hands foreign company – S. 46A, which provides that in the case of a buyback, the difference between the consideration and the cost of acquisition shall be deemed to be capital gains is a special provision and prevails s. 45. S. 47 overrides s. 45 but not s. 46A. There is no reason to enquire whether s. 46A is a charging section or not. The result is that even if the exemption in s. 47(iv) is held applicable, it does not override s. 46A and the applicant is subject to capital gains.
AAR held that the payment for mobilization and de-mobilization is related to use of equipment for undertaking installation work and taxable as royalty under Article 12(3)(b) of the India-Singapore tax treaty (tax treaty). Further as installation is ancillary and subsidiary to the use of equipment or enjoyment of the right for such use, the payment for installation is taxable as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under Article 1 2(4)(a) of the tax treaty. The AAR also held that the applicant has provided services or facilities in connection with the exploration, exploitation or extraction of mineral oils for more than 183 days during the Financial Year (FY). Therefore, the applicant has a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India under Article 5(5) of the tax treaty and covered by Section 44BB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act).
It is the applicant’s contention that the agents have rendered services abroad and would be entitled to receive commission abroad for the services rendered to foreign clients of the applicant. As the services are rendered outside India, and the payment is receivable by the agents abroad no income would arise under the provisions of section 5(2)(b) read with section 9(1) of the Act. Section 5(2)(b) deals with the scope of total income whereby the income of a non-resident includes all income from whatever source derived, which accrues or arises or is deemed to accrue or arise in India during such previous year.
The payments under the IT agreement were not in the nature of reimbursement as the preamble stated that the French company had the capacity and resources to provide and co-ordinate IT services. There was nothing on record from which it could be inferred that the transaction was in the nature of reimbursement. For providing services under both, the wide area network as well as the messaging system, some hardware was to be utilised.
The applicant approached this Authority with the present application seeking an Advance Ruling on a plea that all the agreements relating to this transaction were negotiated and concluded outside India. It takes the stand, that the loan having been guaranteed by EKN, the interest paid under the transaction is not liable to charge to tax in India under the Income-tax Act in view of Article 11.3 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Convention between India and Sweden. While allowing the application under section 245R(2) of the Act, this Authority framed the following questions for the ruling:
We had occasion to consider the ruling in Dassault, the ruling in P.No.30 of 1999 in re.(AAR/821/2009) of this Authority, the other relevant rulings and the ruling in Millenium, in our recent ruling in Citrix Systems Asia Pacific Pty. Ltd. (AAR/822 of 2009). Therein we have held that there cannot be a user of software over which exists a copyright without a use of the copyright therein. The payment for such use can only be royalty. We have also held that what is paid by a seller on behalf of the customer and what is paid by the customer direct, both partake the character of royalty. In the light of that Ruling, it does not appear to be necessary to further reason out the issue. We adopt the reasons given by us in the Citrix Ruling to find that what is paid by the reseller to the applicant and what is paid for updates and maintenance are royalty and not business income.
