Offshore Equipment Supply by LG Cable Not Taxable in India; Tribunal Overturns Interest Levy u/s 234B.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling that the income from the offshore supply of equipment by LG Cable Limited was not taxable in India, as the property in goods and payment were transferred outside India. The Tribunal also set aside the levy of interest under section 234B of the Income-tax Act, as the payment was subject to tax deducted at source. The issue of interest under section 234D was considered consequential and not specifically addressed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Taxability of income from offshore supply of equipment in India.
2. Application of Indian Income-tax Act and DTAA between India and South Korea.
3. Attribution of income to operations carried out in India.
4. Levy of interest under sections 234B and 234D of the Income-tax Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Taxability of Income from Offshore Supply of Equipment in India:
The primary issue was whether the income from offshore supply of equipment by LG Cable Limited (LGCL) was taxable in India. The Assessing Officer and CIT (Appeals) held that the income from offshore supply was taxable in India, relying on the decision of Authority for Advance Ruling in the case of Ishikawajima Harima Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. The assessee contended that the income from offshore supply wholly accrued and arose outside India, and thus, was not taxable under section 5 of the Income-tax Act. The Supreme Court in Ishikawajima Harima Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. v. DIT [2007] 288 ITR 408 held that income from offshore supply of equipment was not taxable in India as the activities generating profits were carried wholly outside India. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, stating that since the property in goods and payment were transferred outside India, no income accrued in India.

2. Application of Indian Income-tax Act and DTAA between India and South Korea:
The Tribunal emphasized that the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act would apply only if they were more beneficial to the assessee compared to the DTAA. The Supreme Court in Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan [2003] 263 ITR 706 clarified that no provision of the DTAA could fasten a tax liability where the liability was not imposed by the Act. The Tribunal concluded that since the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act were not applicable to the offshore supply of equipment, the DTAA provisions did not come into play.

3. Attribution of Income to Operations Carried Out in India:
The Tribunal examined the contracts between LGCL and PGCIL, noting that the offshore supply contract and the onshore erection contract were interdependent. However, the Tribunal found that the offshore supply of equipment was a separate transaction where the property in goods passed to the buyer outside India. The Tribunal relied on the Sales of Goods Act, 1930, and the Supreme Court's decision in Mahabir Commercial Co. Ltd. to conclude that the property in goods passed to PGCIL upon delivery to the carrier in Korea. Therefore, no part of the income from the offshore supply was attributable to operations carried out in India, and hence, not taxable under section 9(1)(i) of the Income-tax Act.

4. Levy of Interest under Sections 234B and 234D of the Income-tax Act:
The assessee challenged the levy of interest under section 234B, arguing that since the payment was subjected to tax deducted at source, the assessee was not liable to pay advance tax. The Tribunal agreed, citing the decision in Motorola Inc., and concluded that the assessee was not liable to pay interest under section 234B. Regarding interest under section 234D, it was accepted by both parties that it was consequential, and thus, the Tribunal did not record a specific finding on this issue.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, holding that the income from offshore supply of equipment was not taxable in India. The levy of interest under section 234B was also set aside, and the issue of interest under section 234D was deemed consequential.

---