2011 (1) TMI 77 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal confirms beneficial ownership of royalty income & tax rate under India-Netherlands DTAA

ADIT (International Taxation) Versus Universal International Music BV

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)'s decision, confirming the beneficial ownership of royalty income by the assessee and the ... Interest under section 234B - no dispute that entire income of the assessee was tax deductible at source under the provisions of section 195 and therefore in view of the provisions of section 209(l)(d), the advance tax payable by the assessee, nil - no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) deleting the interest, upheldRoyalty income - royalty income amounting for the last quarter of the year 1999 and the first quarter of year 2000 had been declared by the assessee in assessment year 2000-01 on accrual basis that the same was accounted in assessment year 2001-02 - AO however tax the income in A.Y. 2001-02 also - since the income has already been taxed in A.Y. 2000-01 the same cannot be taxed again in A.Y. 2001-02 - order of CIT(A) deleting the addition, upheld - appeals of the revenue, dismissed Issues Involved:1. Rate of tax applicable to royalty income.2. Charge of interest under section 234B.3. Taxability of royalty income amounting to Rs. 49,81,636 in assessment year 2001-02.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Rate of Tax Applicable to Royalty Income:The assessee, a company incorporated in the Netherlands, received royalty income from Universal Music India Pvt. Ltd. for granting commercial exploitation rights of musical tracks. The assessee offered tax at 10% on this royalty income under Article 12 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and the Netherlands. The Assessing Officer (AO) contended that the concessional rate of 10% was applicable only if the assessee was the beneficial owner of the royalty and levied tax at 30%, arguing that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence of beneficial ownership.On appeal, the assessee provided additional evidence, including agreements and a certificate from the Netherlands tax authorities confirming its status as the beneficial owner. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] accepted the assessee's claim and directed the AO to apply the 10% tax rate. The revenue challenged this, arguing that the CIT(A) admitted additional evidence without giving the AO an opportunity to verify it, violating Rule 46A.The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the tax residence certificate issued by the Netherlands tax authorities was sufficient evidence of beneficial ownership per CBDT Circular No. 789 and the Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Union of India and Anr. v. Azadi Bachao Andolan & Anr. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s conclusion that the assessee was the beneficial owner of the royalty and thus entitled to the 10% tax rate.2. Charge of Interest Under Section 234B:The AO charged interest under section 234B for the shortfall in advance tax payment. The CIT(A) deleted the interest, reasoning that the entire income of the assessee was subject to tax deduction at source (TDS) under section 195, which nullified the advance tax liability under section 209(1)(d). The CIT(A) relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in CIT v. Madras Fertilisers Ltd. and several Tribunal decisions.The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, referencing the jurisdictional High Court's judgment (313 ITR 187), which supported the view that if the entire income is subject to TDS, there is no advance tax liability. Therefore, the deletion of interest under section 234B was confirmed.3. Taxability of Royalty Income Amounting to Rs. 49,81,636 in Assessment Year 2001-02:The revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s decision that royalty income of Rs. 49,81,636 was not taxable in assessment year 2001-02. The assessee had declared this income on an accrual basis in assessment year 2000-01, but it was accounted for in assessment year 2001-02. The AO taxed the income in both years. The CIT(A) deleted the addition in assessment year 2001-02, noting that the income had already been taxed in assessment year 2000-01.The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that since the income had already been taxed in assessment year 2000-01 and the revenue did not dispute it in that year, it could not be taxed again in assessment year 2001-02.Conclusion:All the appeals of the revenue were dismissed, confirming the CIT(A)'s decisions on the rate of tax applicable to royalty income, the deletion of interest under section 234B, and the non-taxability of the royalty income in assessment year 2001-02. The order was pronounced in open court on 31.01.2011.