Tribunal rules non-resident entity not liable for tax in India under tax treaty

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, a non-resident corporate entity from Germany, determining that the project office did not constitute a fixed place Permanent Establishment (PE) in India under the India-Germany Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. The Tribunal held that profits from offshore supplies could not be attributed to the alleged PE, as the activities were conducted outside India and the necessary conditions for establishing a fixed place PE were not met. The appeal was allowed, and other issues raised were considered academic or consequential, leading to a judgment in favor of the assessee on 14th July 2023.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the project office of the assessee and Bombardier Transportation India Ltd. (BTIL) constitute a fixed place Permanent Establishment (PE) of the assessee in India under Article 5 of the India-Germany Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).
2. Attribution of profit from offshore and onshore supplies to the alleged PE of the assessee in India.

Summary of Judgment:

Issue 1: Fixed Place Permanent Establishment (PE)
The core issue was whether the project office of the assessee and BTIL constitute a fixed place PE of the assessee in India under Article 5 of the India-Germany DTAA. The assessee, a non-resident corporate entity from Germany, entered into a consortium with BTIL to execute a contract with Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC). The scope of work was clearly divided between the assessee and BTIL, with the assessee handling offshore activities and BTIL managing onshore activities. The Assessing Officer considered the project office of the assessee as a fixed place PE and attributed profits from both offshore and onshore supplies to this PE. The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) agreed with the assessee that the project office had no involvement in offshore supplies but considered BTIL as a fixed place PE of the assessee, attributing 35% profit to this PE.

Issue 2: Attribution of Profit
The Tribunal examined whether BTIL could be considered a fixed place PE of the assessee for attributing profit from offshore supplies. It was determined that the contract with DMRC was divisible, with specific cost centers assigned to each consortium partner. The Tribunal found that the activities under Cost Centre D were performed by BTIL, which offered the profits from these activities to tax in India. The Tribunal concluded that the receipts from offshore supply of rolling stock could not be taxed in India as the transfer of title occurred outside India. The Tribunal also held that the Revenue failed to demonstrate that the premises of BTIL were at the disposal of the assessee, a necessary condition for establishing a fixed place PE under Article 5(1) of the India-Germany DTAA.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal ruled that BTIL does not constitute a fixed place PE of the assessee in India, and thus, the attribution of profit from offshore supplies to the alleged PE is unsustainable. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee. The other issues raised by the assessee were deemed either academic or consequential and did not require adjudication.

Order Pronounced:
The appeal was allowed, and the order was pronounced in the open court on 14th July, 2023.

---