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 assessee had a permanent establishment in India under Article 5 of the India-Finland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, so as to make offshore supply income taxable in India; (ii) Whether notional interest on delayed consideration under vendor financing could be brought to tax as income in the hands of the assessee.
Issue (i): Whether the assessee had a permanent establishment in India under Article 5 of the India-Finland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, so as to make offshore supply income taxable in India.
Analysis: The dispute turned on whether the Indian subsidiary and liaison arrangements constituted a fixed place permanent establishment, a place of management, an office, a sales outlet, an installation or supervisory permanent establishment, or a dependent agent permanent establishment. The Tribunal applied the disposal test for a fixed place permanent establishment and held that mere co-location, administrative support, customer interface, or participation by employees of the Indian entity did not establish that any physically located premises were at the disposal of the foreign enterprise for carrying on its own business. The activities relied on by the Revenue were held to be preparatory or auxiliary, and the Tribunal also held that no dependent agent permanent establishment was shown because the Indian entity did not habitually conclude contracts on behalf of the assessee for offshore supply. On the same reasoning, the attribution of profits and the revenue's challenge to the hardware and software split became consequential once no permanent establishment was established.
Conclusion: No permanent establishment of the assessee in India was established, and the offshore supply income could not be brought to tax in India on that basis.
Issue (ii): Whether notional interest on delayed consideration under vendor financing could be brought to tax as income in the hands of the assessee.
Analysis: The Tribunal held that tax can be levied only on real income that has accrued or been received, or in respect of which a legally enforceable right to receive exists. Since the assessee had not charged interest on delayed payment, had not treated any such amount as receivable, and no corresponding liability of the customers was shown to have crystallised, the proposed addition rested only on a hypothetical accrual. The Tribunal therefore rejected the notional computation of interest from vendor financing.
Conclusion: The addition on account of notional interest from vendor financing was deleted and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on the substantive taxability issues, the finding of permanent establishment was overturned, and the consequential revenue grounds failed.
Ratio Decidendi: For taxing offshore supply income under the treaty, the Revenue must establish that the foreign enterprise had a permanent establishment in India under the applicable treaty provisions, and that such income is attributable to operations carried out in India; mere presence of an Indian subsidiary or administrative support does not suffice, and hypothetical interest cannot be taxed absent real accrual or an enforceable right to receive it.
TaxTMI 
