TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 57
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....India or not in view of the given facts and circumstances of the case. For this assessee has raised identical worded grounds and the grounds raised in both the years is as under: - "For AY 2012-13 Ground No. I - Appellant Considered to Constitute a Permanent Establishment ('PE') in India 1.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer and the Honorable DRP without appreciating the evidence and submissions filed, erred in holding that the Appellant has a Service PE in India under Article 5(6) of India Singapore Tax Treaty. 1.2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer and the Honorable DRP without appreciating the evidence and submissions filed, erred in holding that the Appellant has a Service PE in India under Article 5(6) of India Singapore Tax Treaty as regards Service fee income. 1.3 The learned Assessing Officer and the Honorable DRP failed to appreciate that the technical service resulting in the Service Fee income would be covered by Article 12 of India Singapore Tax Treaty and hence would not result into in a Service PE in In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....64 days in connection with shareholders activity and the same could not be considered for determination of Service PE under Article 5(6) of the India Singapore Tax Treaty for the Management Fee income. 1.6 The learned Assessing Officer and the Honorable DRP failed to appreciate that the Appellant's employees had visited India for 26 days in connection with the Service Fee income and the same could not he considered for determination of Service PE under Article 5(6) of the India Singapore Tax Treaty since it was less than the threshold limit of 30 days and also the same could not be aggregated with 64 days for which the Appellant's employees had visited India for an activity which was distinct and separate from Service Fee activity." 3. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that the DRP has simply followed its own order in assessee's own case for AY 2011-12 and has not adjudicated the issue independently. The learned Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the findings recorded by the DRP in both the assessment years i.e. AY 2012-13 and 2013-14 and the relevant finding as recorded in AY 2012-13 reads as under: - "2.2 As the fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l assessment order that the assessee, if aggrieved by it, would be able to approach the appellate authorities under the Act. These special rights are made available under Section 144C of the Act to an eligible assessee such as the petitioner. Therefore, it cannot be ignored by passing an final order under Section 144(13) of the Act without preceding it with a Draft Assessment order as required therein. 8. The contention of the Revenue that the requirement of passing a draft Assessment Order under Section 144C of the Act would only extend to the orders passed in the first round of proceedings or in respect of an order passed by the Assessing Officer in remand proceedings by the Tribunal which has entirely set aside the original assessment order. This distinction which is sought to be drawn by the Revenue is not borne out by Section 144C of the Act. In fact, the Delhi High Court in JCB (India) Ltd. (supra) held that, even in partial remand proceedings from the Tribunal, the Assessing Officer is obliged to pass a draft assessment order under Section 144C(1) of the Act. According to us, the Assessing Officer, is obliged to, in terms of Section 144C of the Act to pass a Draft A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the returned income. In this case, in the working out of the order dated 5th May, 2017 of the Tribunal results in the returned income being varied, then the procedure of passing a draft assessment order under Section 144C(1) of the Act is mandatory and has to be complied with, which has not been done. 11. In the above view, the impugned order is without jurisdiction. Thus, the plea of alternate remedy advanced by the Revenue so as to not entertain this petition, does not merit acceptance in the present facts. 12. In the above view, the impugned order dated 31st January, 2018 has been passed without complying with the mandatory requirements of Section 144C of the Act which is applicable to a Foreign Company such as the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. Needless to state, this order would not, in any way, stop the Revenue from taking such steps as are available to it in law and the petitioner also from contesting the action of the Revenue in accordance with law, if it so desires." 5. The learned Counsel for the assessee clearly admitted that there Is no adjudication on merits and facts in AY 2011-12. Hence, independent of finding....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... thereby treated the balance amount of Rs. 18,83,06,075/- as the taxable income in India i.e. as business profit. The AO taxed the same at the rate of 40%. Aggrieved, now assessee came in appeal before us. 8. The learned Counsel for the assessee also explained that the number of days, for which the assessee's employees were sent to India for the said services during the AY 2013-14 and the amount earned has been tabulated as under: - Sr. No. Particulars Amount (in INR)-AO/5 Number of solar days. 1. Management fee 30,18,10,059/- 64 days 2. Service fee 1,45,18,591/- 26 days Total 31,63,28,650/- 90 days 9. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee argued that the service fee can be considered for Fee for Technical Services (FTS) under section 97 of the Act but argued that the management fees are not taxable in term of section 90(2) of the Act as the assessee is entitled to claim the benefit of DTAA to the extent the same are more beneficial as compared to the provisions of section of the Act. The learned Counsel for the assessee argued that the provisions of the Act applies to both the receipts i.e. the service fee a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plying the provisions of the DTA for the other. This view of ours is supported by the order of this ITAT Bangalore Bench in the case of IBM world Trade Corporation v ADIT (IT) (2015) 58 taxmann.com 132 (Bang) and IMB World Trade Corpn v DDIT (IT) (2012) 20 taxmann.com 728 (Bang). We find from the facts of this case as regards the management fee, the assessee opted to be governed by the India-Singapore DTAA. In fact, both the assessee and the AO are of the view that the Management fee income is business income under Article 7 of the India-Singapore DTAA which would be taxable only if the assessee had a Permanent Establishment in India under Article 5 of the DTAA. As per Article 5(6)(b) of the India-Singapore DTAA, "An enterprise shall be deemed to have a permanent establishment in a Contracting State if it furnishes services, other than services referred to in paragraphs 4 and 5 of this Article and technical services as defined in Article 12, within a contracting through employees or other personnel, but only if... (b) activities are performed for a related enterprise (within the meaning of Article 9 of this Agreement) for a period or periods aggregating more than 30 days in any fis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ideration) for the rendering of any managerial, technical or consultancy services." According to us, in view of the above provision, the maximum possible taxability in the hands of the assessee on each of the sources of income would be @10 percent under Section 115A(1)(b) of the Act. Accordingly, vis-à-vis the Service Fee the assessee agreed to offer the said receipt to tax as fees for technical services under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. Alternatively, also, even under the provisions of the India-Singapore DTAA, the Service Fee would he taxable as fees for technical services under Article 12(4)(b) as the assessee makes available technical knowledge, experience, skill etc. to DDIL. Since DDIL did not have qualified technical experts with experience in setting up of IDCs on request, the assessee sent its employees who were experts in the field of IDCs to assist and provide guidance to DDIL enabling it to carry out the setting up of the IDCs on its own. Since the Service Fee would he taxable as fees for technical services under Article 12(4)(b) of the DTAA, the said services would fall outside the purview of Service PE under Article 5(6) of the DTAA which provides '6 An e....