TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the commission income from the foreign sales order was to be attributed in the ratio adopted by the assessee or in a higher proportion to the Indian branch. (ii) Whether amounts already offered to tax in earlier assessment years could again be taxed in the year under appeal. (iii) Whether the claim relating to head office expenses under section 44C required fresh consideration.
Issue (i): Whether the commission income from the foreign sales order was to be attributed in the ratio adopted by the assessee or in a higher proportion to the Indian branch.
Analysis: The allocation had to reflect the relative functions performed by the head office and the Indian branch in earning the commission. The head office negotiated and finalized the contracts, coordinated with the foreign supplier, and carried out the substantive contract-related efforts in Germany. The Indian branch mainly provided customer information, logistical support, installation assistance, and post-sale services. On that functional comparison, the assessee's attribution of 60 per cent to the branch was found justified, and the higher allocation adopted by the appellate authority was not accepted.
Conclusion: The assessee's allocation of commission income was accepted, and the addition sustained by the appellate authority was deleted.
Issue (ii): Whether amounts already offered to tax in earlier assessment years could again be taxed in the year under appeal.
Analysis: Once a part of the commission attributable to the branch had already been offered to tax in the earlier assessment years, the same receipt could not be brought to tax again in the present year. Only the amount actually received in the relevant previous year and not already assessed earlier could be taxed in this assessment year.
Conclusion: Double taxation of the same receipt in the year under appeal was not permitted, and relief was granted to the assessee.
Issue (iii): Whether the claim relating to head office expenses under section 44C required fresh consideration.
Analysis: The parties agreed that the question of allowability of head office expenses should be examined afresh in the light of section 44C and the assessee's actual claim. The matter therefore required reconsideration by the Assessing Officer after giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing.
Conclusion: The issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
Final Conclusion: The attribution of commission income was decided in favour of the assessee to the extent of restricting taxability to the amount properly attributable and not already assessed earlier, while the head office expense issue was sent back for reconsideration.
Ratio Decidendi: Business income attributable to a branch or permanent establishment must be apportioned on the basis of the real functions and efforts contributing to the earning of the income, and the same receipt cannot be taxed again in a later year once it has already been assessed or offered to tax.
TaxTMI 
