Case Law Details
Piaggio Vehicles Private Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Pune)
ITAT Pune held that the DTAA does not get triggered at all when a domestic company pays DDT u/s. 115O of the Income Tax Act. In nut-shell, domestic company doesn’t enter domain of DTAA at all.
Facts- The assessee is a domestic company and is engaged in manufacture and sale of three and four wheeler motor vehicles for the transportation of goods and passengers. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. A reference was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer u/s 92CA(1) of the Act to determine the Arm’s Length Price of the international transactions entered into by the assessee with its Associate Enterprises during the relevant AY. Pursuant thereto an upward adjustment of Rs.7,36,97,574/- (Rs.1,53,75,780/- in respect of import of traded spares and Rs.5,83,21,794/- in respect of payment of corporate guarantee fees) was proposed by the TPO vide his order dated 31.10.2019 passed u/s 92CA(3) of the Act. AO after incorporating the above transfer pricing adjustment completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s.144C(3) of the Act on 27.01.2022 assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.2,52,11,98,880/-.
The assessee carried the matter in appeal before CIT(A) challenging the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.7,36,97,574/- which were allowed by CIT(A). The assessee therefore prayed before the CIT(A) that the DDT discharged by it during the AY 2016-17 in excess of 15% as prescribed under Article 11(2) of the India-Italy DTAA should be allowed as refund to it. CIT(A) decided the identical issue of refund of excess taxes paid on dividend distribution in assessee’s own case in favour of the revenue. Accordingly, being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.
Conclusion- The Special Bench of the Mumbai Tribunal has decided the issue in favour of the Revenue relating to applicability of the rate prescribed under the Tax Treaty for tax payable on dividend distribution u/s 115 of the Act in favour of the Revenue.
Held that where dividend is declared, distributed or paid by a domestic company to a non-resident shareholder(s), which attracts Additional Income-tax (Tax on Distributed Profits) referred to in sec.115-0 of the Act, such additional income tax payable by the domestic company shall be at the rate mentioned in section 115-0 of the Act and not at the rate of tax applicable to the non-resident shareholder(s) as specified in the relevant DTAA with reference to such dividend income. Nevertheless, we are conscious of the sovereign’s prerogative to extend the treaty protection to domestic companies paying dividend distribution tax through the mechanism of DTAAs. Thus, wherever the Contracting States to a tax treaty intend to extend the treaty protection to the domestic company paying dividend distribution tax, only then, the domestic company can claim benefit of the DTAA, if any.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT PUNE
The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 31.01.2024 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Pune [“CIT(A)”] pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY”) 2016-17.
2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-
“1. Refund of excess taxes paid on dividend distributed
On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred in not granting the benefit of Article 11 of the India-Italy Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (‘DTAA’) in determining the Dividend Distribution Tax (‘DDT’) payable, without appreciating the fact that the dividend declared and paid by the Appellant to Piaggio & C.S.p.A., Italy, being tax on dividend income should be liable to tax at the rate prescribed in the India-Italy DTAA. Consequently, the refund of excess tax (DDT) paid by the Appellant be granted.
The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend modify or withdraw any or all the above grounds of appeal herein above and to submit such statements, documents and papers as may be considered necessary either at or before the being of this appeal as per the law.”
3. Briefly stated, the assessee is a domestic company and is engaged in manufacture and sale of three and four wheeler motor vehicles for the transportation of goods and passengers. It is also engaged in the manufacture of two wheeler vehicles by the brand name ‘Vespa’ as well as sale of spare parts of two wheelers, three wheelers and four wheelers and manufacture of petrol and diesel engines. It e-filed its return of income for AY 2016-17 on 30.11.2016 declaring total income of Rs.2,44,62,64,850/-which was subsequently revised by filing the revised return on 08.03.2018 declaring total income of Rs.2,44,75,01,310/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. Statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) were issued and served upon the assessee.
3.1 A reference was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer (“TPO”) u/s 92CA(1) of the Act to determine the Arm’s Length Price of the international transactions entered into by the assessee with its Associate Enterprises during the relevant AY. Pursuant thereto an upward adjustment of Rs.7,36,97,574/- (Rs.1,53,75,780/- in respect of import of traded spares and Rs.5,83,21,794/- in respect of payment of corporate guarantee fees) was proposed by the Ld. TPO vide his order dated 31.10.2019 passed u/s 92CA(3) of the Act. The Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”) after incorporating the above transfer pricing adjustment completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s.144C(3) of the Act on 27.01.2022 assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.2,52,11,98,880/-.
4. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) challenging the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.7,36,97,574/- which were allowed by the Ld. CIT(A) relying on his decision in preceding AY 2015-16 in assessee’s own case involving the identical issues in respect of export of parts and component-service spares and export of parts and components – global sourcing and payment of corporate guarantee fees. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee raised an additional claim pertaining to refund of excess taxes paid on dividend distributed. The assessee claimed that as the Dividend Distribution Tax (“DDT”) represents tax on dividend income, the assessee should be granted the benefit of Article 11 of the India-Italy Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (“India-Italy DTAA”) and that the dividend declared and paid by the assessee to Piaggio & C.S.p.A., Italy, being tax on dividend income should be liable to tax at rate prescribed in the India-Italy DTAA. Consequently, excess tax (DDT) paid by the assessee should be refunded. The Ld. CIT(A) called for a remand report from the Ld. AO to which the Ld. AO submitted his response on 02.03.2022, the relevant para of which are reproduced by the Ld. CIT(A) in para 6.2 of his appellate order. Thereafter, the remand report was forwarded to the assessee for its comments thereon. The assessee vide its letter dated 17.06.2022 submitted a detailed response to the remand report which is reproduced by the Ld. CIT(A) in para 6.3 of his appellate order. (Pages 3548 of the appellate order refers). The assessee filed further submissions on 30.01.2014 stating as under :
“5.1. Background :
The Appellant distributed dividend of INR 1,04,81,10,000 to its shareholders during AY 2016-17. As per Section 115-O of the Act, dividend declared, distributed or paid by an Indian company is subject to tax @ 20.36 percent (grossed up) (referred to as ‘Dividend Distribution Tax’ or ‘DDT’) in the hands of the dividend declaring company. Accordingly, the Company paid DDT of INR 21,33,70,540 on the aforesaid dividend.
The break-up of the dividend paid to the shareholders and DDT thereon (as duly disclosed in the Schedule DDT of Form ITR-6) is as under :
| Shareholders | Country of Shareholder | % of equity share held | Dividend paid (INR) | DDT paid (INR) |
| Piaggio & C.S.p.A (‘P&C’) |
Italy | 99.9999 | 1,04,81,08,952 | 21,33,70,327 |
| Vespa B.V. | Netherlands | 0.00001 | 1,048 | 213 |
5.2 As per Article 11of the India-Italy Tax Treaty (‘the Tax Treaty’) dividend paid by an Italian tax resident may be taxed in Italy. Further, such dividend may also be taxed in India, according to the domestic tax law of India, but tax so charged shall not exceed 15 percent of the gross dividend (where at least 10% of capital of the Indian company is held by such Italian company).
5.3. Given that P&C holds more than 10% of shares of the Appellant, the tax on dividend (i.e., DOT) leviable on the Appellant cannot exceed 15 percent as per Article 11 of the Tax Treaty.
5.4. Thus, since DOT represents tax on dividend income, the Appellant should be granted the benefit of Article 11 of the Tax Treaty and the dividend declared and paid by the Appellant to P&C should be liable to tax at the rate prescribed in the India-Italy DTAA. Consequently, excess tax (i.e., ‘DOT’) paid by the Appellant should be refunded.
5.5. Basis the above, the Appellant is entitled to refund of differential DOT (viz. 20.36 percent less 15 percent) on dividends distributed to P&C. The refund of excess DOT amounts to INR 5,61,53,984, which is computed as under:
| Particulars | Amount (INR) |
| DDT paid which is attributable to P&C @ 20.36 percent) | 21,33,70,327 |
| Less : DDT @ 15 percent (as per Article 11 of the Tax Treaty) | 15,72,16,343 |
| DDT refund due | 5,61,53,984 |
5.6. In support of the aforesaid ground taken up in the appeal before your Honours, the Appellant had already filed detailed submission dated 17 June 2022 and 26 September 2022 filed before Your Honour, after considering the remand report received from the Ld. AO (copy of the said submissions filed earlier are Annexure 17a and 17b, respectively).
5.7. In addition to the aforesaid submissions, the Appellant wishes to submit the following additional submission, pursuant to the subsequent decision of Hon’ble Special Bench (‘SB’) of Tribunal in case of Total Oil India (ITA No. 6997IMUMI2019).
5.8. In the aforesaid case, the Hon’ble SB had an occasion to deal with the matter relating to applicability of the rate prescribed under the tax treaty for tax payable on dividend distribution under section 115-0 of the Income tax Act, 1961 (the Act). In the said decision, the Hon’ble SB held that a domestic company cannot apply a lower rate provided under the tax treaty over Dividend Distribution Tax (‘~OT’) rate provided under section 115-0 of the Act. Copy of the decision is enclosed as Annexure 18.
5.9. In the ensuing paragraphs, the Appellant has summarized the observations of the Hon’ble sa in the aforesaid decision, along with detailed rebuttals of the Appellant in relation to the same.
A. Observation no. 1 of the Hon’ble SB :
The Hon’ble Supreme Court (‘SC’) in case of Tata Tea Co. Ltd. [(2017) 398 ITR 260 (SC)] (Tata Tea decision’) was not dealing with the nature of DOT as to whether it is tax on the company or a tax on the shareholder. Thus, the Tata Tea decision does not support the cause of assesses, having regard to the well settled principle that a judicial precedent is only “an authority for what it actually decides and not what may come to follow from some observations which find place therein”.
[Refer Para 70 of the order of Hon’ble SB).
Appellant’s rebuttals
The Appellant’s rebuttals to observation no. 1 are as follows:
a. As per Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Act, tax under the Act can be only levied on ‘income’. While Section 115-0 of the Act is a notwithstanding section, it cannot create a charge other than on ‘income’.
b. In the aforesaid decision passed by the Hon’ble SC in case of Tata Tea Co. Ud (supra), the constitutional validity of Section 115-0 of the Act was challenged by the assessee (which was in the business of cultivating and processing tea) before the Hon’ble Calcutta HC. While the Hon’ble HC upheld the constitutional validity of this provision, it held that the additional tax (i.e. the ~OT) could be imposed only on 40% of the income (because 40% of the company’s total income was attributable to the tea-processing activities and, hence, taxable) and not on the balance 60% of the income (because that income was attributable to the agricultural activities, and hence, regarded as “agricultural income” beyond the purview of the Act). The Revenue challenged this decision before the Hon’ble SC.
The Hon’ble SC noted that the key issue was whether Section 115-0 of the Act, which imposes additional tax on dividends paid by a domestic company, was within the fold of Entry 82 of the Constitution, which embraces the entire field of “tax on income”.
c. Referring to Section 2(24) of the Act, it noted that the definition of “income includes “dividend” and hence, it held that imposition of additional tax on dividend was indeed, tax on income, and clearly covered by Entry 82 of List I to Seventh Schedule of the Constitution (‘Entry 82’).
d. While it is true that the question raised before the Hon’ble SC was relating to constitutional validity of DOT, it is imperative to note that, to decide on the matter of constitutional validity of DOT, it was essential to determine the characterization of DOT and whether the same is on ‘income’ (to fall within Entry 82).
e. Thus, the Hon’ble SC has, in-fact decided on the exactly identical question under consideration i.e. regarding the characterization of DOT; and the Hon’ble SC has succinctly opined that DOT is a tax on ‘dividend income’ (and hence, covered by Entry 82) and not on the income/ profits of the company declaring dividend.
f. Correspondingly, the said ratio laid by the Hon’ble SC in Tata Tea decision is a binding principle in determining the nature/ characterization of DDT.
g. The Hon’ble SB has not considered the above aspects/ observations of the Hon’ble SC in Tata Tea decision in this context. Consequentially, the Hon’ble Special Bench appears to have inadvertently noted that Hon’ble SC was not dealing with the nature of DDT.
B. Observation no. 2 of the Hon’ble SB
DDT is not a tax paid ‘on behalf of shareholders’, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court (‘HC’) in case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. (328 ITR 81) (‘G&B HC decision’), since the Hon’ble HC held that the company paying DOT does not act as an agent of the shareholder under S. 115-0 of the Income tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’).
[Refer Para 72 of the order of Hon’ble SB].
The observations of the Hon’ble Bombay HC in G&B HC decision regarding the legal characteristics of DOT, that it is tax on a company paying the dividend and “is chargeable to tax on its profits as a distinct taxable entity and that the domestic company paying DOT does not do so on behalf of the shareholder nor does it act as an agent of the shareholder in paying the tax under S. 115-0, cannot be said to have been diluted or overruled by the Hon’ble SC in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. (394 ITR 449) (‘G&B SC decision’). It can be said that the Hon’ble SC has taken a different basis to reach the same conclusion but without diluting the reasoning of the Hon’ble Bombay HC that DOT is not a tax paid by the domestic company on behalf of the shareholder.
[Refer Para 74 of the order of Hon’ble SB].
Appellant’s rebuttals
The Appellant’s rebuttals to observation no. 2 are as follows:
a. As discussed at Para (A) above, while Section 115-0 is a notwithstanding section and creates charge of tax in the hands of the company distributing dividends, it cannot create a charge other than on ‘income’.
b. Based on the observations of the Hon’ble SC in the Tata Tea decision above, it is amply clear that distribution of dividend cannot be considered as ‘income’ of the distributing company and thus, while such tax is levied/ charged in the hands of company distributing dividend, the said tax paid on dividend income only.
c. The Hon’ble SB held that, the G&B HC decision lays down the principle that DOT is not a tax paid ‘on behalf of the shareholder’. The said principle does not dilute the principle that it is tax on ‘dividend income’, with merely the incidence of tax being on the resident company declaring such dividend.
d. Additionally, the Hon’ble SB has missed to note the following important aspects:
The language of Section 115-0 of the Act itself states that DDT is an ‘additional tax’ on ‘any amount declared, distributed or paid by such company by way of dividends’. Hence, it would not be appropriate to ignore the ‘dividend income’ part and merely conclude that DOT is a ‘tax on profits’ of the domestic company.
The aforesaid observation is contrary to the principle laid down by the Hon’ble SC in Tata Tea decision, wherein it is clearly laid down that DOT charged under Section 115-0 of the Act is not on the income/ profits of the company declaring dividend.
The above is, in-fact, contrary to the Hon’ble SB’s own observation at para 52 of the aforesaid order, wherein the Hon’ble SB has noted that “If one says Dividend is share of profits declared as distributable among the shareholders, it does not mean that the character of the profits distributed by the company as dividend retain the same character when it reaches the hands of the shareholders”.
The reliance placed by the Hon’ble SB on the G&B HC decision in this regard is misplaced. In this context, it is important to note that, the G&B HC decision has merely laid down the principle that DOT is a tax on the domestic company (which is undisputed). The said principle has also been upheld by in the G&B SC decision. However, the said decisions cannot be regarded as concluding that ‘DOT is not a tax on dividend’, since those cases pertained to the issue concerning disallowance of expenditure under Section 14A of the Act. These decisions, therefore, limited their observations to the applicability of Section 14A of the Act on dividend income.
Also, the G&B HC decision and the G&B SC decision have not laid down any principle contrary to those laid down by the Hon’ble SC in Tata Tea decision and both the decisions operate in different fields. As discussed above, since the Tata Tea decision of Hon’ble SC specifically discusses regarding the characterization and validity of 00 T under Section 115-0 of the Act, the said ruling is a binding in the present context.
C. Observation no. 3 of the Hon’ble SB
The additional income tax under S. 115-0 of the Act is referred to as “tax on distributed profits” commonly referred to as “Dividend Distribution Tax”. It is a tax on “distributed profits” and not a tax on “dividend distributed”.
Further, the non obstante clause in S. 115-0 “notwithstanding anything contained in this Act but subject to the provisions of S. 115-0” is an indication that the charge under the said section is independent and divorced from the concept of “total income” under the Act.
[Refer Para 58 of the order of Hon’ble SB].
Also, the Hon’ble Bombay HC [in case of SIDBI vs. CBDT (133 taxmann.com 158) (‘SIDBI ruling’), after discussing the effect of the non-obstante clause in S. 50 of SIDBI Act, and holding that those provisions will override S. 115-0 of the Act, further went on to hold that dividend is distributed from and out of the accumulated profits and therefore would fall within the ambit of the expression “income, profits or gains accruing or arising to the Small Industries Development Assistance and or any amount received in that fund, and be any income profits or gains derived or any amount received by the Small Industries Bank”. Thus, it is clear from the aforesaid decision that charge under S. 115-0 of the Act is on the company’s profits and not on income in the hands of the shareholder.
[Refer Para 75 of the order of Hon’ble SB].
a. As discussed in detail at Para (A) and Para (B) above and also as upheld by the Hon’ble SC, in the Tata Tea decision, Section 115-0 of the Act cannot create a charge other than on ‘income’ and is not a tax on underlying profits of the domestic company distributing dividend.
b. The phrase ‘tax on distributed profits’ is merely an abbreviated phrase used in Section 115-0 to refer to DOT. However, basis the unambiguous language of Section 115-0, is it amply clear that it is not additional tax on profits of the domestic company, but tax on dividend distributed by it. This is also clear from the intent of the Government as specified in the memorandums to the Finance Act (‘FA’) 1997 and FA 2000.
c. Further, as regards the SIDBI ruling, since the question before the Hon’ble Bombay HC also necessitated characterization of DOT under section 115-0, it was essential for the Hon’ble Bombay HC to refer to the Tata Tea decision of Hon’ble SC for the same.
However, the Hon’ble HC did not refer to/ consider the ruling of the SC in Tata Tea decision and resultantly, the interpretation of the principle laid down in the SIDBI ruling i.e. ‘charge under Section 115-0 of the Act is on the company’s profits’, with due respect, is contradictory to the ruling of SC in the Tata Tea decision. Hence, the decision of Hon’ble HC in SIOBI ruling ought to be regarded as ‘per incuriam’ to such extent.
d. Also, the Hon’ble Bombay HC in deciding the matter in SIDBI ruling, relied on the ruling in G&B HC decision. However, as discussed in detail at Para (B) above, the ruling in G&B HC case itself was not in the context of characterization of DOT under Section 115-0, but was on applicability of Section 14A. Consequentially, the reliance placed by the Hon’ble HC in SIDBI ruling on the ruling in G&B HC decision is inappropriate, especially considering that the Hon’ble SC has taken a principally different view on characterization of DOT in the Tata Tea decision.
D. Observation no. 4 of the Hon’ble SB
DDT is paid by the domestic company resident in India. It is a tax on its income and not tax paid on behalf of the shareholder. In such circumstances, the domestic company under S. 115-0 does not enter the domain of DTAA at all. [Refer Para 80 of the order of Hon’ble SB].
Appellant’s rebuttals
a. Section 90(1) of the Act allows the Government of India to enter into a Tax Treaty for avoiding ‘double taxation of income’ and not for avoiding ‘double taxation of non-residents’. Similarly, it refers to, granting of relief in respect of ‘income’ on which tax is paid in both countries.
Further, Section 90(2) of the Act provides that, in relation to the assessee to whom such agreement applies, the provisions of the Act or the Treaty, whichever is more beneficial, shall apply to that assessee.
b. Article 1 of the Tax Treaties (including in case of India Italy Tax Treaty) provides that the provisions of such Treaty shall apply ‘to persons who are residents of one or both of the Contracting States’.
c. Having regard to the above provisions of Section 90 of the Act, read in juxtaposition with the” provisions of the Tax Treaty, it is evident that nowhere a resident is prohibited/ excluded from claim the benefit of Tax Treaty.
d. The Dividend Article (i.e. Article 11 in case of India-Italy Tax Treaty) restricts the right of India, as a source state, to tax dividend paid by a company resident of India to a resident of the other state. Relevant extract of the said clause is reproduced below for ease of reference:
2. However, such dividends may also be taxed in the Contracting State of which the company paying the dividends is a resident and according to the laws of that State, but if the recipient is the beneficial owner of the dividends, the tax so charged shall not exceed:
(a) 15 per cent of the gross amount of’ the dividends if the beneficial owner is a company which owns at least 10 per cent of the shares of the company paying the dividends; and
(b) 25 per cent of the gross amount of the dividends in all other cases.
e. On reading the aforesaid Article, it is evident that the purpose of the Dividend Article, which is to allocate taxing rights between Contracting States qua dividend income, and given the language thereof, what needs to be determined is whether DOT is a tax on dividends paid by a resident of India to a resident of the other State, in which case, such tax has to be limited to the rate specified therein. Hence, on whom the tax on dividend is levied, or on whose behalf the tax is paid, are irrelevant considerations for its application.
f. The only pre-requisite for the applicability of Article 11 is that the tax levied according to the laws of India should be a tax ‘on dividends’. Since the language of Section 115-0 categorically provides that 00 T is an additional tax on dividends, as is also upheld by the Hon’ble SC in Tata Tea decision (as discussed in detail in preceding paragraphs), Article 11 should consequently apply to DOT as well. There is nothing in the language of the Tax Treaty that limits the applicability of Article 10 to taxes that are levied on the shareholders.
g. Having regard to the above, the Appellant submits that the applicability of the Tax Treaty rate to dividends ought not to be excluded on account of the fact that the tax on dividends levied under Indian law is on the domestic company (being a resident in India) rather than the non-resident shareholder.
E. Observation no. 5 of the Hon’ble SB
If domestic company has to enter the domain of DTAA, the countries should have agreed specifically in the DTAA to that effect, as in case of Treaty between India and Hungary, wherein the Contracting States have extended the Treaty protection to the dividend distribution tax.
[Refer Para 81 of the order of Hon’ble SB].
Appellant’s rebuttals
a. As discussed at Para (0) above, there is no prohibition/ restriction on applicability of tax treaty for a domestic company, specifically in the context of Article 11.
b. Further, a specific provision on a subject matter may not always be necessitated when the general provisions are wide enough to cover the same. Thus, though the Protocol to the India-Hungary Tax Treaty specifically provides for restricting the DDT rate as per Article 10 (Dividends) of the said Tax Treaty, it cannot automatically be inferred that, in absence of such express mention, DOT would not be limited by the rate prescribed in the relevant Article relating to dividends under all the other Tax Treaties.
c. The presence of an express clause in a particular Tax Treaty cannot be construed as leading to its automatic exclusion in other Tax Treaties. This is also since, the provisions of the Dividend Article are clear and the tax treaties, unlike the Act, are negotiated agreements between Contracting States.
d. Hence, in absence of anything to show that the negotiators intended otherwise, it cannot be assumed that due to lack of a provision similar to India-Hungary Tax Treaty, the other Tax Treaties do not intend to relieve double taxation qua dividend income where dividends are taxable in India.
e. Such an interpretation would neither be as per the clear language of the Dividend Article, nor in consonance with the objective of Article 11 of the Tax Treaty, which is to restrict the taxation right of India with respect to dividends at the rate of 15%.
f. Thus, despite the difference in language of other Tax Treaties vis-a-vis India-Hungary Tax Treaty, the interpretation ought to be governed basis the same underlying intention i.e. avoiding double taxation of dividend and restricting the tax on dividend income earned by a non-resident from an Indian company up to the rate prescribed under the Dividend Article.
4.1 The assessee therefore prayed before the Ld. CIT(A) that the DDT discharged by it during the AY 2016-17 in excess of 15% as prescribed under Article 11(2) of the India-Italy DTAA should be allowed as refund to it.
4.2 The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the facts of the case, remand report and submission filed by the assessee, observed in para 6.5 of his order that he has decided the identical issue of refund of excess taxes paid on the dividend distributed in AY 2015-16 in assessee’s own case in favour of the Revenue relying on the decision of Special Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of DCIT Vs. Total Oil India (P.) Ltd. (2023) 104 ITR (T) 1 (Mumbai-Trib.) (SB). The relevant findings and observations of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced below for ready reference :
“6.5 I have carefully considered the facts of the case, remand report and submission filed by the appellant. It is seen that I have decided the identical issue of refund of excess taxes paid on the dividend distributed in AY 201516 in appellant’s own case also. The relevant findings of the same is extract below for reference:
“QUOTE
8.6 Briefly, the appellant company distributed dividend of Rs.79,50,61,309 to its shareholder during the relevant financial year. The appellant company deducted TDS on this as per section 115-0 of the Act amounting to Rs.14,55,98,543. The appellant has claimed that instead of Tax deducted @ 16.995% and 19.994% (grossed up), the TDS should have been restricted @ 15% as per Article 11 of the India-Italy DTAA. The appellant has referred to section 90 of the Income Tax Act and stated that it overrides provision of section 115-0. It is seen that section 90 is under Chapter IX of the Income Tax Act which is on double taxation relief This primarily deals with non-resident assesses and section 90(2) states the principle for granting relief of tax for non-resident assesses for avoidance of double taxation. It is not furnished how the dividends have been taxed in both India and Italy for the non-resident parent entity. In the instant case, the appellant is a resident and not a non-resident and the discussion under section 90 is not appropriate. The learned A 0 has also referred to the wordings of section 15-0 which uses the term ‘not withstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act ……….. ‘. In view of the above, I reject the claim of the appellant for refund of excess DOT. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is dismissed.
UNQUOTE”
6.5.1 If is also seen that the Hon’ble Special Bench of the Mumbai ITAT passed order in case of Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. & Oth VS DCIT, Mumbai & Oth (ITA No. 6997/Mum/2019 dt. 20.04.2023) wherein the same issue was decided. The relevant para of the ITAT order is reproduced as under :
“QUOTE
81. If domestic company has to enter the domain of DTAA, the countries should have agreed specifically in the DTAA to that effect. In the Treaty between India and Hungary, the Contracting States have extended the Treaty protection to the dividend distribution tax. It has been specifically provided in the protocol to the Indo Hungarian Tax Treaty that, when the company paying the dividends is a resident of India the tax on distributed profits shall be deemed to be taxed in the hands of the shareholders and it shall not exceed 10 per cent of the gross amount of dividend. While making Reference in the case of Total Oil (supra), the Id. Division Bench has made the following observations on this aspect:
“(f) Wherever the Contracting States to a tax treaty intended to extend the treaty protection to the dividend distribution tax, it has been so specifically provided in the tax treaty itself For example, in India Hungry Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement [(2005) 274 ITR (Stat) 74; Indo Hungarian tax treaty, in short], it is specifically provided, In the protocol to the Indo Hungarian tax treaty it is specifically stated that “When the company paying the dividends is a resident of India the tax on distributed profits shall be deemed to be taxed in the hands of the shareholders and it shall not exceed 10 per cent of the gross amount of dividend”. That is a provision in the protocol, which is essentially an integral part of the treaty, and the protocol to a treaty is as binding as the provisions in the main treaty itself In the absence of such a provision in other tax treaties, it cannot be inferred as such because a protocol does not explain, but rather lays down, a treaty provision. No matter how desirable be such provisions in the other tax treaties, these provisions cannot be inferred on the basis of a rather aggressively creative process of interpretation of tax treaties. The tax treaties are agreements between the treaty partner jurisdictions, and agreements are to be interpreted as they exist and not on the basis of what ideally these agreements should have been.
(g) A tax treaty protects taxation of income in the hands of residents of the treaty partner jurisdictions in the other treaty partner jurisdiction. Therefore, in order to seek treaty protection of an income in India under the Indo French tax treaty, the person seeking such treaty protection has to be a resident of France. The expression ‘resident’ is defined, under article 4(1) of the Indo French tax treaty, as “any person who, under the laws of that Contracting State, is liable to tax therein by reason of his domicile, residence, place of management or any other criterion of a similar nature”. Obviously, the company incorporated in India, i. e. the assessee before us, cannot seek treaty protection in India- except for the purpose of, in deserving cases, where the cases are covered by the nationality non-discrimination under article 26(1), deductibility non-discrimination under article 26(4), and ownership non- discrimination under article 24(5) as, for example, article 26(5) specifically extends the scope of tax treaty protection to the “enterprises of one of the Contracting States, the capital of which is wholly or partly owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by one or more residents of the other Contracting State”. The same is the position with respect of the other non-discrimination provisions. No such extension of the scope of treaty protection is envisaged, or demonstrated, in the present case. When the taxes are paid by the resident of India, in respect of its own liability in India, such taxation in India, in our considered view, cannot be protected or influenced by a tax treaty provision, unless a specific provision exists in the related tax treaty enabling extension of the treaty protection.
(h) Taxation is a sovereign power of the State- collection and imposition of taxes are sovereign functions. Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement is in the nature of self-imposed limitations of a State’s inherent right to tax, and these DTAAs divide tax sources, taxable objects amongst themselves. Inherent in the self-imposed restrictions imposed by the DTAA is the fact that outside of the limitations imposed by the DTAA, the State is free to levy taxes as per its own policy choices. The dividend distribution tax, not being a tax paid by or on behalf of a resident of treaty partner jurisdiction, cannot thus be curtailed by a tax treaty provision
82. We are of the view that the above exposition of law is correct and we agree with the same. Therefore, the 0 T AA does not get triggered at all when domestic company pays DOT u/s. 1150 of the Act.
83. For the reasons give above, we hold that where dividend is declared, distributed or paid by a domestic company to a non-resident shareholder(s), which attracts Additional Income Tax (Tax on Distributed Profits) referred to in Sec. 115-0 of the Act, such additional income tax payable by the domestic company shall be at the rate mentioned in Section 115 0 of the Act and not at the rate of tax applicable to (he non-resident shareholder(s) as specified in the relevant DTAA with reference to such dividend income. Nevertheless, we are conscious of the sovereign’s prerogative to extend the treaty protection to domestic companies paying dividend distribution tax through the mechanism of DTAAs. Thus, wherever the Contracting States to a tax treaty intend to extend the treaty protection to the domestic company paying dividend distribution tax, only then, the domestic company can claim benefit of the DTAA, if any. Thus, the question before the Special Bench is answered, accordingly.
UNQUOTE”
In view of the above, I reject the claim of the appellant for refund of excess DDT. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is dismissed.”
5. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and the solitary ground raised by the assessee relates thereto.
6. The Ld. AR brought to our notice that the impugned issue relating to the refund of excess DDT paid by the assessee company stands covered by the decision of Special Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Total Oil India (P.) Ltd. (supra). However, he reiterated the contentions raised by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) specially in rebuttal to the decision of the Special Bench of Mumbai Tribunal (supra) in support of its claim before us. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of Ld. CIT(A).
7. We have heard the Ld. Representative of the parties and perused the material on record. The facts are not in dispute and remain same during the relevant AY 2016-17 as they were in preceding AY 2015-16. The impugned issue is squarely covered by the decision of Special Bench of Mumbai Tribunal (supra), which has been followed by the Ld. CIT(A). The Special Bench of the Mumbai Tribunal has decided the issue in favour of the Revenue relating to applicability of the rate prescribed under the Tax Treaty for tax payable on dividend distribution u/s 115 of the Act in favour of the Revenue. A copy of the said decision (supra) was placed before us. The relevant observations and findings of the Special Bench of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Total Oil India (P.) Ltd. (supra) are as under:
“56. By the Finance Act, 1997, the Government introduced simplistic system by introduction of Chapter XII-D to the Act, comprising of Sec.115-O, 115-P and 115Q. The tax so paid was treated as the final tax on dividends and the dividends were exempt from any further incidence of tax in India in the hands of the shareholders. The Memorandum to the Finance Act, 1997, explaining the reasons for introduction of Sec.115O specifies two fold objectives (i) procedure for tax collection in the form of Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) was cumbersome and involves a lot of paper work and collection from the company would be much easier. (ii) Since there was no tax incidence in the hands of the shareholder that would encourage investment in the shares of domestic companies. Sec.115O so introduced in Chapter XII-D of the Act reads thus:
“115-O. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act and subject to the provisions of this section, in addition to the income-tax chargeable in respect of the total income of a domestic company for any assessment year, any amount declared, distributed or paid by such company by way of dividends (whether interim or otherwise) on or after the 1st day of June, 1997, whether out of current or accumulated profits shall be charged to additional income-tax (hereafter referred to as tax on distributed profits) at the rate of ten per cent.
(1A) Notwithstanding that no income-tax is payable by a domestic company on its total income computed in accordance with the provisions of this Act, the tax on distributed profits under sub-section
(1) shall be payable by such company.
(2) The principal officer of the domestic company and the company shall be liable to pay the tax on distributed profits to the credit of the Central Government within fourteen days from the date of—
(a ) declaration of any dividend; or
(b) distribution of any dividend; or
(c) payment of any dividend,
whichever is earliest.
(3) The tax on distributed profits so paid by the company shall be treated as the final payment of tax in respect of the amount declared, distributed or paid as dividends and no further credit therefor shall be claimed by the company or by any other person in respect of the amount of tax so paid.
(4) No deduction under any other provision of this Act shall be allowed to the company or a shareholder in respect of the amount which has been charged to tax under sub-section (1) or the tax thereon.”
58. A plain reading of the provisions of Sec.115O shows that it creates a charge to additional income tax on any amount declared, distributed or paid by domestic company by way of dividend for any assessment year. The tax so charged is “in addition to the income-tax chargeable in respect of the total income of a domestic company for any assessment year”. The additional income tax is referred to as “tax on distributed profits” commonly referred to as “Dividend Distribution Tax”. It is a tax on “distributed profits” and not a tax on “dividend distributed”. The point of time at which the additional income tax is payable by the domestic company is laid down in Sec.115O, viz, within fourteen days from the date of—
(a ) declaration of any dividend; or
(b) distribution of any dividend; or
(c) payment of any dividend,
Whichever is earliest. The person liable for payment of such additional tax is “principal officer of the domestic company and the company”. The payment has to be made to the credit of the Central Government. Sec.115O is thus, a code by itself, in so far as levy and collection of tax on distributed profits. The non obstante clause in Sec. 115O “notwithstanding anything contained in this Act but subject to the provisions of this section (i.e., Sec.115O)” is an indication that the charge under the said section is independent and divorced from the concept of “total income” under the Act. The tax on distributed profits so paid by the company shall be treated as the final payment of tax in respect of the amount declared, distributed or paid as dividends and no further credit therefor shall be claimed by the company or by any other person in respect of the amount of tax so paid. No deduction under any other provision of this Act shall be allowed to the company or a shareholder in respect of the amount which has been charged to tax under sub-section (1) of Section 115 O or the tax thereon. This scheme of Sec.115-O was abolished by the Finance Act of 2002. Section 115-O was reintroduced by Finance Act, 2003 reverting to the simplistic system. Ultimately, DDT was abolished by the Finance Act, 2020 and the Government reverted to the classical system of taxation of dividend.
70. On behalf of the assessee, it was argued that Supreme Court has laid down the principle that DDT u/s.115-O is nothing but a tax in the hands of the shareholder because they have gone by the nature of income in the hands of the shareholder and not in the hands of the Domestic Company paying dividend. This argument in our view is devoid of any merit. As was submitted by the learned DR, the Supreme Court while dealing with the constitutional validity of Sec.115 O of the Act has held that under section 2(24)(ii) dividend is included in ‘income’ and is thus covered by Entry 82 of List I to Seventh Schedule, “taxes on income, other than agricultural income”. The argument on behalf of the assessee was that in “pith and substance” DDT was a tax on Agricultural income, which was rejected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The law is well settled that a judicial precedent is only “an authority for what it actually decides and not what may come to follow from some observations which find place therein”. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was not dealing with the nature of DDT as to whether it is tax on the company or a tax on the shareholder. Thus, in our considered view the decision rendered in the case of Tata Tea Co. Ltd. (supra) does not support the cause of assesses.
72. On appeal against the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the judgment reported as Godrej & Boyce Mfg Co Ltd Vs DCIT (supra), has observed that “the fact that section 10(33) and section 115 O of the Act were brought in together; deleted and reintroduced in a composite manner, also, does not assist the assessee” and that “if the argument is that tax paid by the dividend paying company under section 115-O is to be understood to be on behalf of the recipient assessee, the provisions of Section 57 should enable the assessee to claim deduction of expenditure incurred to earn the income on which such tax is paid” which is wholly incongruous in view of the provisions of Section 10(33). The payment of dividend distribution tax under section 115 O does not discharge the tax liability of the shareholders. It is a liability of the company and discharged by the company. Whatever be the conceptual foundation of such a tax, it is not a tax paid by, or on behalf of, the shareholder.
74. Dealing with the first question, the Hon’ble Supreme Court made the following observations:
“30. While it is correct that Section 10(33) exempts only dividend income under Section 115-O of the Act and there are other species of dividend income on which tax is levied under the Act, we do not see how the said position in law would assist the assessee in understanding the provisions of Section 14A in the manner indicated. What is required to be construed is the provisions of Section 10(33) read in the light of Section 115-O of the Act. So far as the species of dividend income on which tax is payable under Section 115-O of the Act is concerned, the earning of the said dividend is tax free in the hands of the assessee and not includible in the total income of the said assessee. If that is so, we do not see how the operation of Section 14A of the Act to such dividend income can be foreclosed. The fact that Section 10(33) and Section 115-O of the Act were brought in together; deleted and reintroduced later in a composite manner, also, does not assist the assessee. Rather, the aforesaid facts would countenance a situation that so long as the dividend income is taxable in the hands of the dividend paying company, the same is not includible in the total income of the recipient assessee. At such point of time when the said position was reversed (by the Finance Act of 2002; reintroduced again by the Finance Act, 2003), it was the assessee who was liable to pay tax on such dividend income. In such a situation the assessee was entitled under Section 57 of the Act to claim the benefit of exemption of expenditure incurred to earn such income. Once Section 10(33) and 115-O was reintroduced the position was reversed. The above, actually fortifies the situation that Section 14A of the Act would operate to disallow deduction of all expenditure incurred in earning the dividend income under Section 115-O which is not includible in the total income of the assessee.
31. So far as the provisions of Section 115-O of the Act are concerned, even if it is assumed that the additional income tax under the aforesaid provision is on the dividend and not on the distributed profits of the dividend paying company, no material difference to the applicability of Section 14A would arise. Sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 115-O of the Act makes it very clear that the further benefit of such payments cannot be claimed either by the dividend paying company or by the recipient assessee. The provisions of Sections 194, 195, 196C and 199 of the Act, quoted above, would further fortify the fact that the dividend income under Section 115-O of the Act is a special category of income which has been treated differently by the Act making the same non-includible in the total income of the recipient assessee as tax thereon had already been paid by the dividend distributing company. The other species of dividend income which attracts levy of income tax at the hands of the recipient assessee has been treated differently and made liable to tax under the aforesaid provisions of the Act. In fact, if the argument is that tax paid by the dividend paying company under Section 115-O is to be understood to be on behalf of the recipient assessee, the provisions of Section 57 should enable the assessee to claim deduction of expenditure incurred to earn the income on which such tax is paid. Such a position in law would be wholly incongruous in view of Section 10(33) of the Act.
32. A brief reference to the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P. Ltd. (supra) may now be made, if only, to make the discussion complete. In Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P. Ltd.(supra) the issue involved was: “whether in a dividend stripping transaction the loss on sale of units could be considered as expenditure in relation to earning of dividend income exempt under Section 10(33), disallowable under Section 14A of the Act?”
33. While answering the said question this Court considered the object of insertion of Section 14A in the Income Tax Act by Finance Act, 2001, details of which have already been noticed. Noticing the objects and reasons behind introduction of Section 14A of the Act this Court held that: “Expenses allowed can only be in respect of earning of taxable income.” In paragraph 17, this Court went on to observe that: “Therefore, one needs to read the words “expenditure incurred” in section 14A in the context of the scheme of the Act and, if so read, it is clear that it disallows certain expenditure incurred to earn exempt income from being deducted from other income which is includible in the “total income” for the purpose of chargeability to tax.” The views expressed in Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P. Ltd. (supra), in our considered opinion, yet again militate against the plea urged on behalf of the Assessee.
34. For the aforesaid reasons, the first question formulated in the appeal has to be answered against the appellant-assessee by holding that Section 14A of the Act would apply to dividend income on which tax is payable under Section 115-O of the Act.”
[Emphasized by us]
The aspect which weighed with the Hon’ble Supreme Court was the fact that the payment of DDT was not a payment on behalf of the shareholder. Leaving aside the question whether it is a tax on company or shareholder, the position that remains undisturbed is the conclusion that “DDT is not a payment on behalf of the shareholder” by the domestic company. The observations of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court regarding the legal characteristics of DDT that it is tax on a company paying the dividend and “is chargeable to tax on its profits as a distinct taxable entity and that the domestic company paying DDT does not do so on behalf of the shareholder nor does it act as an agent of the shareholder in paying the tax under Section 115-O, cannot therefore be said to have been diluted or overruled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It can be said that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken a different basis to reach the same conclusion but without diluting the reasoning of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court that DDT is not a tax paid by the domestic company on behalf of the shareholder. The additional reasoning in the Hon’ble Bombay High Court’s judgment is the conclusion that it is a tax on domestic company on its profits/amount payable on declaration, distribution or payment, as the case may be, of amount as dividend out of accumulated profits. Therefore the argument that DDT is paid on behalf of the shareholder and has to be regarded as payment of liability of the shareholder, discharged by the domestic company paying DDT, is neither correct nor does it flow from the ratio laid down in the decision by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce (supra).
75. In the case of Small Industries Development Bank of India Vs Central Board of Direct Taxes (supra) the Hon’ble Bombay High Court had an occasion to consider the question whether charge u/s.115 O of the Act is on the company’s profits and not income in the hands of the shareholder. The Assessee in this case was a statutory corporation that came into existence by virtue of the Small Industries Developments Bank of India Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the SIDBI Act). Sec.50 of the said Act, exempts, the Assessee from payment of income tax on any income, profits or gains derived or any amount received by it. Section 50 of the SIDBI Act reads as under:
“Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Income-tax Act, 1961 or in any other enactment for the time being in force relating to income-tax or any other tax on income, profits or gains, the Small Industries Bank shall not be liable to pay income-tax or any other tax in respect of:- (a) any income, profits or gains accruing or arising to the Small Industries Development Assistance and or any amount received in that Fund, and b) any income, profits or gains derived or any amount received by the Small Industries Bank.” 10. Section 50 of the SIDBI Act contains non-obstante clause giving overriding effect over provisions of Income Tax Act in respect of any income, profits, gains derived or any amount received by the company. It is well settled that a provision beginning with non-obstante clause must be enforced and implemented by giving effect to the provisions of the Act and by limiting the provisions of other laws.”
The assessee paid dividend to it’s shareholders. The question before the Court was whether it has to pay DDT u/s.115O of the Act. If Dividend was to be regarded as, “(a) any income, profits or gains accruing or arising to the Small Industries Development Assistance and or any amount received in that Fund, and b) any income, profits or gains derived or any amount received by the Small Industries Bank…………….. ” tax u/s. 115-O was not payable. The assessee relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. (supra) and contended that the court in Godrej and Boyce case (supra) held that the charge under sub-section (1) of Section 115-O of the said Act is on the profits of the domestic company and more specifically on that part of the profits which is declared and distributed by way of dividend. Therefore, it was submitted that the Bank was entitled to refund of the tax amount paid under protest by it. The Court after discussing the effect of the non-obstante clause in Sec.50 of SIDBI Act, and holding that those provisions will override Sec.115O of the Act, further went on to hold that dividend is distributed from and out of the accumulated profits and therefore would fall within the ambit of the expression “income, profits or gains accruing or arising to the Small Industries Development Assistance and or any amount received in that fund, and be any income profits or gains derived or any amount received by the Small Industries Bank”. The following were the relevant observations by the Hon’ble High Court:
“14. Dividend is defined in Section 2(22) of the IT Act to, inter alia, include any distribution by a company of accumulated profits, which entails releasing any assets by the company to its shareholders. In terms of Explanation 2 to Section 2(22) of the said Act, the expression accumulated profits includes all company profits up to the date of distribution or payment thereof. It appears that the transfer of profits of Petitioner to IDBI in terms of Section 29(2) of SIDBI Act entails payment by Petitioner to IDBI. This payment or distribution of Petitioner’s liquid assets constitutes dividend distributed by Petitioner out of its accumulated profits as envisaged under Section 2(22)(a) of the IT Act. It needs to be noted that the charge under sub-section (1) of Section 115-O of the said Act is on the company’s profits, more specifically on that part of the profits which is declared, distributed or paid by way of dividend. The charge under sub-section (1) of Section 115-O of the said Act is not on income by way of dividend in the shareholder’s hands. Therefore, the additional income-tax payable on profits of a domestic company under Section 115-O of the said Act is not a tax on dividend. In our considered opinion, the amount distributed or paid by way of dividend falls in the category of income, profit or gains derived .
15. Once it is held that the amount distributed or paid by Petitioner by way of dividend falls in the category of profits under Section 50 of the SIDBI Act, on any income, profits, gains derived or any amount received, Petitioner shall not be liable to pay income tax or any other tax in the relevant years. Therefore Petitioner was not liable to pay additional income tax under Section 115-O of the said Act. In the circumstances, Petitioner’s payments under protest need to be refunded to the Petitioner.”
[Emphasized by us]
It is thus clear from the aforesaid decision that charge u/s.115 O of the Act is on the company’s profits and not income in the hands of the shareholder.
76. The aforesaid decision by Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has also taken note of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Godrej & Boyce (supra). We have already expressed the view that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce (Supra) does not dilute the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce (supra). The decision in the case of SIDBI (supra) reiterates this position.
78. Another argument that was advanced was that the incidence of tax in the form of DDT is on the domestic company but in effect it is a tax paid on behalf of the shareholder and it is income of the shareholder that is sought to be taxed albeit in the hands of the domestic company. In this regard, the proposition advanced by the learned DR was that in fundamental concept of income-tax there is nothing which prevents imposition of immediate and apparent incidence of tax on a person other than person whose income is to be assessed, i.e., the legislature has power to enact provisions imposing tax liability on domestic company on income of shareholder (even if it is construed as income of shareholder without conceding that it was tax on income of the domestic company). In this regard he relied on decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of B.M. Amin Umma Vs. ITO 26 ITR 137 (Mad). In the aforesaid case the constitutional validity of the provisions of Section 16(3)(a)(ii), of Income Tax Act, 1922 (equivalent to Sec.64 of the Act), was challenged. The said provision provided for inclusion of the income of wife or minor child of an individual in the income of the individual. It was challenged on the ground that it was beyond the legislative powers of the Central Legislature conferred on it by entry 54 of List 1 of the Seventh Schedule of the Government of India Act, 1935. The Hon’ble Madras High Court held that the incidence of the tax whether it is the immediate and apparent incidence, or whether it is the ultimate or real economic incidence, does not, limit the taxing power given to the Central Legislature by entry 54 of list 1. All that entry 54 requires is that the tax must be a tax on Income other than agricultural income. The impugned provision in Section 16(3) (a) (ii), Income-tax Act, 1922 provides only for a tax on income. It does not cease to be a tax on income either in form or in substance, though it provides for the incidence of the tax not on the person whose income is assessed to tax, but on another. In this case that incidence of the tax on the minor child’s income falls under the statute on a parent of that minor. The Hon’ble Court went on to hold that there is nothing in the fundamental concepts of income-tax even to prevent the imposition of the immediate and apparent incidence of the tax on a person other than the person whose income is to be assessed. This decision was approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Balaji Vs. ITO 1962 AIR 123 (SC). These decisions again point to the fact that DDT is a tax on the distributed profits of a domestic company and is a tax on profits of the domestic company and not on the shareholder.
79. As we have discussed earlier, the purpose of DTAA is to avoid double taxation/allocation of taxing rights between two Sovereign nations. When we hold that DDT is a tax not on the shareholder but on the amount declared, distributed, paid as the case may be, by way of dividend and being a tax on income of the company, there is no double taxation of the same income. DTAAs seek to reduce the impact of double taxation which has harmful effects on the international exchange of goods and services and cross-border movements of capital, technology and persons. Bilateral tax treaties address instances of double taxation by allocating taxing rights to the contracting states. Most existing bilateral tax treaties are concluded on the basis of a model, such as the OECD Model Tax Convention or the United Nations Model, which are direct descendants of the first Model of bilateral tax treaty drafted in 1928 by the League of Nations. As a result, while there can be substantial variations between one tax treaty and another, double tax treaties generally follow a relatively uniform structure, which can be viewed as a list of provisions performing separate and distinct functions: (i) Articles dealing with the scope and application of the tax treaty, (ii) Articles addressing the conflict of taxing jurisdiction, (iii) Articles providing for double taxation relief, (iv) Articles concerned with the prevention of tax avoidance and fiscal evasion, and (v) Articles addressing miscellaneous matters (e.g. dministrative assistance). Articles 23A and 23B of the OECD model convention give methods to eliminate double taxation.
80. A reading of Article 10 of the model OECD DTAA shows that Dividends paid by a company which is a resident of a Contracting State, say India to a resident of the other Contracting State (say France) may be taxed in that other State (France). However, if the beneficial owner of the Dividend is a resident in France, the tax so charged shall not exceed specified percent. The first condition is that the non-resident in France should be taxed in India. We have to look at the DTAA from the recipients taxability perspective. DDT is paid by the domestic company resident in India. It is a tax on its income and not tax paid on behalf of the shareholder. In such circumstances, the domestic company u/s.115-0 does not enter the domain of DTAA at all.
81. If domestic company has to enter the domain of DTAA, the countries should have agreed specifically in the DTAA to that effect. In the Treaty between India and Hungary, the Contracting States have extended the Treaty protection to the dividend distribution tax. It has been specifically provided in the protocol to the Indo Hungarian Tax Treaty that, when the company paying the dividends is a resident of India the tax on distributed profits shall be deemed to be taxed in the hands of the shareholders and it shall not exceed 10 per cent of the gross amount of dividend. While making Reference in the case of Total Oil (supra), the ld. Division Bench has made the following observations on this aspect:
“(f) Wherever the Contracting States to a tax treaty intended to extend the treaty protection to the dividend distribution tax, it has been so specifically provided in the tax treaty itself. For example, in India Hungry Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement [(2005) 274 ITR (Stat) 74; Indo Hungarian tax treaty, in short], it is specifically provided, In the protocol to the Indo Hungarian tax treaty it is specifically stated that “When the company paying the dividends is a resident of India the tax on distributed profits shall be deemed to be taxed in the hands of the shareholders and it shall not exceed 10 per cent of the gross amount of dividend”. That is a provision in the protocol, which is essentially an integral part of the treaty, and the protocol to a treaty is as binding as the provisions in the main treaty itself. In the absence of such a provision in other tax treaties, it cannot be inferred as such because a protocol does not explain, but rather lays down, a treaty provision. No matter how desirable be such provisions in the other tax treaties, these provisions cannot be inferred on the basis of a rather aggressively creative process of interpretation of tax treaties. The tax treaties are agreements between the treaty partner jurisdictions, and agreements are to be interpreted as they exist and not on the basis of what ideally these agreements should have been.
(g) A tax treaty protects taxation of income in the hands of residents of the treaty partner jurisdictions in the other treaty partner jurisdiction. Therefore, in order to seek treaty protection of an income in India under the Indo French tax treaty, the person seeking such treaty protection has to be a resident of France. The expression ‘resident’ is defined, under article 4(1) of the Indo French tax treaty, as “any person who, under the laws of that Contracting State, is liable to tax therein by reason of his domicile, residence, place of management or any other criterion of a similar nature”. Obviously, the company incorporated in India, i.e. the assessee before us, cannot seek treaty protection in India- except for the purpose of, in deserving cases, where the cases are covered by the nationality non-discrimination under article 26(1), deductibility non-discrimination under article 26(4), and ownership non-discrimination under article 24(5) as, for example, article 26(5) specifically extends the scope of tax treaty protection to the “enterprises of one of the Contracting States, the capital of which is wholly or partly owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by one or more residents of the other Contracting State”. The same is the position with respect of the other non-discrimination provisions. No such extension of the scope of treaty protection is envisaged, or demonstrated, in the present case. When the taxes are paid by the resident of India, in respect of its own liability in India, such taxation in India, in our considered view, cannot be protected or influenced by a tax treaty provision, unless a specific provision exists in the related tax treaty enabling extension of the treaty protection.
(h) Taxation is a sovereign power of the State- collection and imposition of taxes are sovereign functions. Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement is in the nature of self-imposed limitations of a State’s inherent right to tax, and these DTAAs divide tax sources, taxable objects amongst themselves. Inherent in the self-imposed restrictions imposed by the DTAA is the fact that outside of the limitations imposed by the DTAA, the State is free to levy taxes as per its own policy choices. The dividend distribution tax, not being a tax paid by or on behalf of a resident of treaty partner jurisdiction, cannot thus be curtailed by a tax treaty provision.”
82. We are of the view that the above exposition of law is correct and we agree with the same. Therefore, the DTAA does not get triggered at all when a domestic company pays DDT u/s. 115O of the Act.
Conclusion :
83. For the reasons give above, we hold that where dividend is declared, distributed or paid by a domestic company to a non-resident shareholder(s), which attracts Additional Income-tax (Tax on Distributed Profits) referred to in sec.115-0 of the Act, such additional income tax payable by the domestic company shall be at the rate mentioned in section 115-0 of the Act and not at the rate of tax applicable to the non-resident shareholder(s) as specified in the relevant DTAA with reference to such dividend income. Nevertheless, we are conscious of the sovereign’s prerogative to extend the treaty protection to domestic companies paying dividend distribution tax through the mechanism of DTAAs. Thus, wherever the Contracting States to a tax treaty intend to extend the treaty protection to the domestic company paying dividend distribution tax, only then, the domestic company can claim benefit of the DTAA, if any. Thus, the question before the Special Bench is answered, accordingly”
8. Respectfully following the decision (supra) of the Special Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in Total Oil India (P.) Ltd’s case and in the absence of any contrary material brought to our notice, we endorse the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) as there is no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) in rejecting the claim of the assessee. The ground of the assessee is therefore rejected.
9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 05th August, 2024.
Author Bio
