Skip to main content

AAR in Production Resource Group - SC in FOWC followed

PE under Article 5(1) – degree of permanence relative to the nature and requirement of business carried on -  Need not be forever

Even before the discussion on the 2017 decision of Supreme Court on FOWC could die,  the AAR in Production Resource Group [ 1330/2012 dated 8 Nov 2017] had occasion to deal with a similar issue involving a Belgian Applicant that rendered turnkey services of providing technical equipment and services for CWG events. Observing that the Applicant was allocated exclusive office under the lock and key of the Applicant and onsite space by the Owner,  the Authority found that even a limited presence for 114 days was sufficient to constitute PE under Article 5(1) as ‘the establishment need not be enduring or permanent in the sense that it should be in its control forever in order to constitute a PE and that the length of time has to be necessarily tied to the nature and requirements of the business under consideration.’  The Authority found that all ingredients of Article 5(1) were satisfied - place of business, power of disposition, permanence of location, business activity and business connection it cumulatively and collectively resulted in a PE.

The AAR rejected the alternate plea of the Department that the payment was also one of ‘Royalty’.

Comment and Analysis:


According to both Commentaries, the word ‘permanent’ does not connote in the literal sense of everlasting/forever/eternal in nature or without interruption.  Article 5(1) does not make any reference to minimum period and the duration of a basic rule PE under Art 5(1) need not be in years but may be of months only as ruled in P.No. 24 of 1996 [ Nilesh Modi].  These, coupled with the Supreme Court decision in FOWC,  appears to have led the Authority to rule in favour of PE.  In this connection, one needs to recall the Authority’s negative finding of PE in the FOWC case, which subsequently was overturned by the Delhi High Court.  The Supreme Court affirmed the existence of PE under Art 5(1) in the said case. Comment on SC on FOWC is available in this Blog.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Domain Name Registration Service is ‘Royalty’ – A far fetched proposition The recent decision of the Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [2018] 92 Taxmann.com 241 (Delhi-Trib) on domain name registration service, makes interesting reading. Go Daddy, a Non-Resident Entity with accreditation to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is in the business of granting registration of domain names to Indian entities against payment of certain fee.   Along with this service, the Appellant also provides services of web hosting.   Go Daddy paid tax on Web Hosting Services treating it as Royalty Income, while it took a stand that domain registration fee is not taxable in India as it was neither in the nature of Royalty nor in the nature of Business Profits owing to absence of any business connection.   The department’s stand before the DRP and ITAT was that domain registration service was a.       a
1 comment
Read more

Budget 2018 – Transposing BEPS in the domestic law

Budget 2018 – Transposing BEPS in the domestic law Budget 2018 reflects India’s aggressive efforts to plug leakage of tax on income that has its source in India. By transposing the yet recommendatory BEPS Action 1 [1] and 7 [2] and aligning the definition of ‘business connection’ to fall in line with Article 12 [3] of the MLI, the Budget proposes to significantly broaden the  all-important concept of ‘Business Connection’.   As one of the barometers to determine taxability in India, the enlargement will bring to tax substantial income which hitherto was supposedly untaxed in India.    The current Explanation 2 to Sec 9(1)(i) dealing with ‘business connection’ ( the domestic law equivalent of Dependent Agency PE in DTAA)     has been recast in two significant ways:   Firstly , the new Explanation 2 to Sec 9(1)(i) does away with the requirement that the Agent should also conclude contracts on his o
Post a Comment
Read more

Taxation of Offshore Supplies – Is Composite/Turnkey nomenclature fatal? AAR 1218 of 2011

Taxation of Offshore Supplies – Is Composite/Turnkey nomenclature fatal? AAR 1218 of 2011 Taxability of EPC contracts continues to engage the tax payer and the department despite the Supreme Court laying down the principles in Ishikawajima Harima Heavy Industries judgement in (2007) 288 ITR 408 (SC).   In the instant case, the Applicant was a tyre-manufacturing company and engaged its overseas associated enterprise to supply equipment and supervise the installation of the equipment.   Accordingly, an Umbrella Agreement was entered into for offshore supply of equipment, followed much later by a Services agreement for supervision of installation.   Contending that the two were part of a composite contract, Revenue sought to tax the offshore supply portion in addition to the services portion on the basis that the contracts have to be ‘looked at’ as composite and turnkey and that the supplier was defacto responsible for installation too.      Dismissing the ‘look at’ theor
Post a Comment
Read more