The services rendered by the applicant are technical in nature and do not fall within the exception provided in the definition of FTS since the applicant has not actually carried out any mining or like project. It can at best be said that the services were rendered “in connection with” the mining activity undertaken by the Indian Companies. The applicant cannot be taxed under section 44BB since it had merely contracted to render some prospecting services through a sub-contractor in India.
In present case the applicant just has the right to terminate the secondment agreement, hence, the amount paid by Indian WOS to foreign parent under the secondment agreement is not mere reimbursement and is income of the parent company. Therefore, the applicant is liable to withhold taxes from payments made to foreign parent company.
In the context of section 47(i) and (iii), this gift referred to therein, is a gift by an individual or a Joint Hindu Family or a Human Agency. Section 47(iii) speaks of ‘any transfer of a capital asset under a gift, or will or an irrecoverable trust’. Execution of a will involves a human agency. Cannot the expression gift take its colour from a will with which it is juxtaposed, especially in the background of clause (i) of section 47 and clause (ii) which earlier existed.
Whether the applicant is required to file its return of income under section 139 of the Act, in case, its capital gains is not chargeable to tax in India is question no.6 posed. It has been found that though the applicant would be chargeable to capital gains tax on the proposed sale of shares under the Act, it has been ruled that in view of the benefit available to the applicant by the invocation of section 90(2) of the Act and the DTAC between the two countries, the authorities under the Act cannot tax the income in view of paragraph 4 of Article 13 of the DTAC.
Learned counsel for the Revenue argued that the beneficial ownership of the shares vested with Copal Jersey and that ownership should determine the applicatory law. India did not have a treaty with Jersey and hence on the application of the Income-tax Act, the capital gains are taxable in India. He pointed out that there was no dispute that the gains were taxable under the Act.
The argument that unless the capital gain is actually taxed in Mauritius the DTAC would not apply in the context of section 90(1) and section 90(2) of the Act, though attractive, cannot be entertained in view of the decision in Union of India vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan. Even though capital gain is not actually taxed in Mauritius, the question raised is seen to be concluded by the decision in Union of India vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan. If it wants to, it is for the revenue to canvass the question before the Supreme Court. This Authority is bound by that decision. Here, the assets proposed to be transferred come under paragraph 4 of Article 13 of the DTAC between India and Mauritius. The applicant being a tax resident of Mauritius in the light of the tax residency certificate produced by it, going by the decision in Union of India vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan, it has to be held that the gain that may arise to the applicant is not chargeable to tax in India.
Paragraph 8 of Article 5 of the DTAC provides that where an agent of an independent status to whom paragraph 9 does not apply, is acting in a Contracting State on behalf of an enterprise of the other contracting state, that enterprise shall be deemed to have a permanent establishment, notwithstanding paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 5, if it habitually exercise in that state an authority to conclude contracts on behalf of the enterprise or habitually secures orders in the first mentioned stage wholly or almost wholly for the enterprise itself or for the enterprise under the same common control.
What was the purpose for which the tender was invited by BMRC cannot be in doubt in this case. It was for installing the signaling and communication system for the metro rail. It was not for supply of offshore equipments independently of the installation and commissioning. Nor was it for independent installation and commissioning, divorced from the design and supply of the equipments necessary. Such a contract has necessarily to be read as a whole and is not capable of being split up.
(1) Whether, based on the facts and circumstances of the case, receipts by the Applicant as per the Contract for the overhauling services would be taxable as Fees for Technical Services in India under the Act? – (2) Whether the consideration receivable under the Contract would fall within the definition of Fees for included services under Article 12 of the Indo-US DTAA? Would the services make available any technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how, or processes, or consist of the development and transfer of a technical plan or technical design in terms of Indo-US DTAA?
Assessee was a tax resident of Singapore. The applicant sought a ruling on taxability of subscription fee received from users in India to access the online information database maintained by it. AAR was of the view that the market intelligence services provided by the applicant on online portal was taxable as Royalty as per Clause (iv) of Explanation 2 to Section 9(1) (vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 The same was also taxable as Royalty as per Article 12(2) of India -Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement.
