TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Fabrication charges not taxable in India under India-Singapore DTAA</h1> <h3>Owens-Corning (Singapore) Pte. Ltd Versus DCIT (IT), Circle-3 (2) (2),</h3> Owens-Corning (Singapore) Pte. Ltd Versus DCIT (IT), Circle-3 (2) (2), - TMI Issues Involved:1. Treating the fabrication charges received as fees for technical services (FTS).2. Incorrect tax rate applied to the alleged fees for technical services.3. Levy of interest under section 234B of the Income-tax Act, 1961.4. Unexplained additional tax demand.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Treating the Fabrication Charges Received as Fees for Technical Services:The primary issue contested by the assessee was the classification of fabrication charges received as 'fees for technical services' (FTS) by the Assessing Officer (AO) and the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The assessee argued that the fabrication charges should not be considered as FTS under the Income-tax Act, 1961 or the India-Singapore Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). The AO and DRP, however, treated these receipts as FTS under Article 12(4)(a) of the DTAA between India and Singapore, and consequently taxed them under section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal noted that similar issues had been dealt with in the assessee's own case in previous years, where it was decided that the fabrication charges did not amount to making available any technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how, or process, and thus, could not be taxed as FTS. The Tribunal upheld this view, concluding that the income from the refurbishing of bushes was not taxable in India as per the provisions of Article 12(3) and Article 12(4)(a) of the DTAA.2. Incorrect Tax Rate Applied:The assessee contended that even if the fabrication charges were to be taxed as FTS, the applicable tax rate should be 10% as per Article 12(2) of the India-Singapore DTAA, rather than the 25% applied by the AO. However, since the Tribunal concluded that the fabrication charges were not taxable as FTS, this issue became academic and infructuous.3. Levy of Interest Under Section 234B of the Income-tax Act, 1961:The assessee challenged the levy of interest under section 234B of the Income-tax Act, asserting that no interest was leviable based on the facts and prevailing law. Given the Tribunal's decision that the fabrication charges were not taxable in India, the issue of interest levy under section 234B also became academic and infructuous.4. Unexplained Additional Tax Demand:The assessee disputed an additional tax demand of Rs. 2,60,299/- raised by the AO, claiming it was unexplained and erroneous. As the core issue regarding the taxability of fabrication charges was resolved in favor of the assessee, this additional tax demand was also rendered academic and infructuous.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the appeals for both assessment years (2015-16 and 2018-19), concluding that the fabrication charges received by the assessee were not taxable in India under the DTAA between India and Singapore. Consequently, the issues regarding the incorrect tax rate, interest levy under section 234B, and the additional tax demand were dismissed as infructuous. The Tribunal's decision was pronounced on 26th December 2022.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
