AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (5) TMI 1074
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....termining the total income of the Appellant to be Rs 176,087,745. 2. Ground 2 The learned AO/ DRP has erred in holding that the Appellant has a Permanent Establishment ('PE') in India as per the provisions of the India-US Double Tax Avoidance Agreement ('India - US tax treaty') and accordingly, holding the ad sales revenue earned by the Appellant as taxable in India. The Appellant prays that the AO be directed to treat the ad sales revenue as not taxable in India in the absence of PE in India. 3. Ground 3 The learned AO/ DRP has erred in holding that the distribution revenues earned by the Appellant falls within the meaning of the term 'Royalty' under Article 12 of the India- US tax treaty and the Act and accordingly, such distribution revenues are taxable in India. ITA No. 5826/Mum/2012 (directed against order dated 14.02.2012 passed by the Assessing Officer passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C (13) of the Income Tax Act 1961, for the assessment year 2004-05) 1. The Appellant has disclosed, fully and truly all material facts, necessary for completion of origi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent ('India - US tax treaty') and accordingly, the advertisement sales revenue earned by the Appellant are taxable in India. The Appellant prays that the learned AO be directed to treat the advertisement sales revenue as not taxable in India in the absence of PE in India. 4. Ground 4 Without prejudice to Ground 2 & 3 above the learned AO/DRP erred in attributing additional profits to the Appellant in India without appreciating that the alleged PE has been remunerated at arm's length. 5. Ground 5 The learned AO/ DRP has erred in holding that the distribution revenues earned by the Appellant falls within the meaning of the term 'Royalty' under Article 12 of the India-US tax treaty and the Act and accordingly, such distribution revenues are taxable in India. The Appellant prays that the learned AO be directed to treat the distribution revenues as not taxable in India, as the distribution revenues are not in the nature of royalty. 6. Ground 6 The learned AO/DRP has erred in taxing the content syndication income earned by the Appellant at the rate of 42.23% rather than at the rate of 10.56% as pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y in India; Ground 5 erred in granting short credit of taxes deducted at source amounting to Rs.38,13,375; Ground 6 erred in adding an amount of Rs.17,96,79,470 to the tax liability, being refund for AY 2011-12 alleged to be received by the Appellant, without appreciating the fact that the Appellant has never received any refund for AY 2011-12; Ground 7 erred in levying interest under Section 234D of the Act; Ground 8 erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the act without appreciating the fact that the Appellant has not concealed any income nor furnished any inaccurate particulars of its income; Ground 9 erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271A of the Act without appreciating the fact that the Appellant is a non-resident and is not required to maintain India specific books of accounts; Ground 10 erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271B of the Act without appreciating the fact that the Appellant is a non-resident and is not required to get its accounts audited; ITA No. 2079/Mum/2017 (directed aga....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the India-US tax traty on the distribution revenues, while calculating the income tax liability for Assessment Year 2012-13; Ground 11 Erred in granting short credit of taxes deducted at source amounting to Rs.70,719; Ground 12 Erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the Appellant has neither concealed any income nor furnished any inaccurate particulars of its income; Ground 13 erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271A of the Act without appreciating the fact that the Appellant is a non-resident and is not required to maintain India specific books of accounts; Ground 14 erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271B of the Act without appreciating the fact that the Appellant is a non-resident and is not required to get its accounts audited; ITA No. 528/Mum/2018 (directed against order dated 27.11.2017 passed by the Assessing Officer passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C (13) of the Income Tax Act 1961, for the assessment year 2013-14) On the facts and in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ound 12 erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the Appellant has neither concealed any income nor furnished any inaccurate particulars of its income; 3. Grievance of the assessee is thus two fold-first-that the authorities below erred in holding that the assessee had a dependent agency permanent establishment (DAPE) in India and that the profits of the DAPE on account of advertisement sale revenues were liable to be taxed as such, and, second-that the distribution revenues earned by the assessee are taxable under article 12 of the Indo-US tax treaty. These are some small peripheral legal issues, raised by the assessee, but then these issues admittedly do not call for any adjudication by us inasmuch as so far as levy of interest under section 324A, B & C and cess etc are concerned these issues will be rendered infructuous and so far as not granting tax credit is concerned, these issues were not pressed. 4. So far as the first core issue is concerned, i.e. whether or not the assessee had a dependent agent permanent establishment (DAPE) in India and whether or not any profits on account of advertisem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng of advertising time and these are 'sold' by ZTL/EI Zee. Almost all the advertisers are from India and the advertisements are solicited by the Indian company. The advertisers book the slots on the channel by coming into contact with employees of ZTL/EI Zee at their office. The other stream of revenue is 'subscription revenue' which is also collected by ZTL/EI Zee on behalf of the assessee. • The payments are collected by ZTL/EI Zee and the same is remitted to Mauritius by it. • The employees of ZTL/EI Zee are employees of Zee group as a whole and they perform functions as required by ATL also. • In the case of other telecasting channels also it is held by the revenue authorities that their agent in India constitute a Permanent Establishment. 5.2.4. The above stated factual position clearly brings out that the assessee's case falls under Article 5(1) of the Indo-Mauritius treaty when the business of the assessee is carried out through a fixed placed in India and in effect, is a virtual projection of the assessee in India. 7. The Assessing Officer further observed that, without prejudice to the above analy....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssing Officer is aggrieved and in appeal before us. The assessee's cross-objections, however, deal with an even more fundamental aspect. That aspect is that given the fact that the assessee has paid arm's length remuneration to its Indian agents, no further taxability can be attributed to its income earned through the agents in India. 9. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and duly considered facts of the case in the light of the applicable legal position. 10. We find that it's an admitted position that the assessee does not have any office or place of management of its own, and its presence in India is only through its agents. Undoubtedly, in terms of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court's path-breaking judgment in the case of Vishakhapatnam Port Trust (supra), " 'permanent establishment' postulate the existence of a substantial element of an enduring or permanent nature of a foreign enterprise in another country which can be attributed to a fixed place of business in that country" and "it should be of such a nature that it would amount to a virtual projection of the foreign enterprise of one country into t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by one of the specific clauses in article 5(2). As we discuss the case made out by the Assessing Officer, it is also important to note that the Assessing Officer concludes his relevant analysis by adding that "In the case of other telecasting channels also it is held by the revenue authorities that their agent in India constitute a Permanent Establishment", but in none of these cases the permanent establishment is said to be under basic rule, i.e., Article 5(1) and Article 5(2), and in all these cases, the permanent establishment is dependent agency permanent establishment, i.e., under Article 5(4). Even the case of the Assessing Officer thus hinges on the applicability of Article 5(4). There can be permanent establishments through the presence of the agency, for example. There can be virtual projections even without a fixed place of business, such as in the case of a dependent agency permanent establishment, but such cases will be covered by article 5 (4) rather than article 5(1) and 5(2). The detailed analysis by the Assessing Officer, as extracted earlier in this order, also makes that position evident. At best, therefore, it is a case of dependent agency permanent establishmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... period or periods aggregating more than 90 days within any 12 month period. 3. Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this article, the term "permanent establishment" shall be deemed not to include : (a) the use of facilities solely for the purpose of storage or display of merchandise belonging to the enterprise ; (b) the maintenance of a stock of goods or merchandise belonging to the enterprise solely for the purpose of storage or display ; (c) the maintenance of a stock of goods or merchandise belonging to the enterprise solely for the purpose of processing by another enterprise ; (d) the maintenance of a fixed place of business solely for the purpose of purchasing goods or merchandise or for collecting information for the enterprise ; (e) the maintenance of a fixed place of business solely- (i) for the purpose of advertising, (ii) for the supply of information, (iii) for scientific research, or (iv) for similar activities, which have a preparatory or auxiliary character for the enterprise. 4. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs (1) and (2) of this article, a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....there is a PE in the source jurisdiction, only so much of profits of the foreign enterprise, as are attributable to a PE, can be taxed in the source jurisdiction- as is the unambiguous mandate of Article 7(1). It is in this context one has to examine the tax implications of DAPE, and that tax implication is that the profits attributable to the DAPE are brought to tax in the source jurisdiction. The next logical point, therefore, as to how to compute profits attributable to a DAPE, and it is this aspect of the matter which has been a subject matter of academic debates and controversies. There are two approaches to it i.e., to borrow the terminology employed by International Tax Law Reports (see 2007, Volume 9; Part 5; at pages 963-964), first- a "single taxpayer" or "zero-sum approach", and, second- "two taxpayers" or "non zero-sum approach". While Philip Banker, a well known international tax lawyer, has all along advocated zero-sum approach, late Klaus Vogel touched a different chord, in his column 'Tax Treaty Monitor' in the 'Bulletin for International Taxation (November 2007 at page 475) and given his approval for "two taxpayers approach". The latter is also in conso....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, the foreign enterprise is also taxable in India, in terms of the provisions of Article 7 of the tax treaty, in respect of the profits attributable to the dependent agent permanent establishment. As we have elaborated earlier in this order, a dependent agent permanent establishment is distinct from the dependent agent. While computing the profits of this dependent agent permanent establishment, a deduction is to be allowed for the remuneration paid to the dependent agent as that is cost of operation of the dependent agent permanent establishment and as it has been incurred for generating the revenues attributable to such hypothetical permanent establishment. Let us take a very simple example to understand the mechanism of this approach. Let us assume that there is an electronic equipment distributor by the name of Sing Co. based in Singapore. He sources the electronic equipment from all over the globe and sells the same to its customers in India. Instead of having a regular office in India, and instead of carrying out the marketing activity in India, he projects his business in India through an Indian Co. by the name of Ind. Co. There is no dispute that Ind. Co. is a dependent ag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome of the foreign enterprise attributable to the permanent establishment in the host country. The income attributable to the permanent establishment in the host country is the income attributable to foreign company's operations in the host country, which, in turn, implies the income attributable to the activities carried on the foreign enterprise in the host country. That income, as shown in 'B' above is the income arrived at by taking into account revenues generated by the PE and deducting therefrom the expenditure incurred by the foreign enterprise to earn those revenues. However, it is open to the foreign enterprise to claim appropriate adjustment for the foreign enterprise's overheads and even a reasonable charge, on account of activities of the foreign enterprise carried on outside the host country, by treating the foreign enterprises as a fictionally separate entity. 12. Learned counsel, however, contends that since the profit attributable to the PE are the profits which the PE "might be expected to make if it were a distinct and separate enterprise engaged in the same or similar activities under the same or similar conditions and dealing wholly inde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the permanent establishment of the foreign company in India. The tax liability of the foreign company and not the Indian dependent agent. However, in case we are to uphold the stand of the learned counsel, we will end up in a situation that taxability of Indian company is to be allowed to extinguish tax liability of the foreign principal. 16. Learned counsel has relied upon the commentaries of various authors including Phillip Baker, Prof. Roy Rohtagi and Prof. David R. Davies. It is contended that according to these distinguished authors, payment of arms length remuneration by a foreign company to its agent extinguishes tax liability of the foreign principal. With respect, and for the reasons we have set out above, we are of the considered view that in the dependent agency permanent establishment situation, this proposition does not hold good. In any event, this approach proceeds on the assumption, which turns out to be fallacious assumption on the facts of the present case, that dependent agent and dependent agent permanent establishment are one and the same thing. 17. Learned counsel has then relied upon the order of this Tribunal in the case of Dy. CIT v.Rox....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ial precedents from Hon'ble Courts above, did not agree with this approach. In his editorial comments in the International Tax Law Reports, he has favoured the other alternative approach to this issue, i.e., the single taxpayer approach. He observed that, "One view (to which editor of these law reports subscribes) is that if the dependent agent is being remunerated on a correct arm's length price for the function he performs, risks he assumes, and the assets he employs in his agency, there is no basis for attributing any further profits to the DAPE over and above the arm's length remuneration to the agent", and reasoned the same by observing that "As soon as one abandons the single taxpayer approach, one needs to start attributing the DAPE functions that were not performed by the agent, assets that were not employed by it and the risks that were not assumed by it. In other words, the two taxpayer approach requires an abandonment of reality and entirely hypothetical attribution which, in arm's length world which must have some basis in reality, is simply a licence for arbitrary allocation of profits. Ultimately, that's what Tribunal did here". There is thus a cleavage of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es. Considering all these aspects and the fact that the agent has a good profitability record, it held that the Appellant has remunerated the agent on an arm's length basis. This finding of the Tribunal has not been disputed by the Revenue. The entire contention of the Revenue is that the advertisement revenue pertaining to its own channel and AXN Channel are also taxable in India. 11. We may firstly point out that CIT has dealt with the issue as to why the advertisements received by the Appellant were not liable for being taxed in India based on the CBDT Circular No. 23, dated 23-7-1969 which clearly sets out that where a non-resident's sales to Indian customers are secured through the services of an agent in India, the assessment in India of the income arising out of the transaction will be limited to the amount of profit which is attributable to the agent's services, provided that (i) the non-resident principal's business activities in India are wholly channelled through his agent; (ii) the contracts to sell are made outside India; and (iii) the sales are made on a principal-to-principal basis. The CIT(A) had recorded a specific finding in favou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... behalf of the assessee learned Counsel has produced an order passed by the Additional CIT (Transfer Pricing-II), Mumbai in the matter of determination of arm's length price with reference to all the transactions reported in Form No. 3CEB filed by the assessee. The assessee is SET India, the depending agent. The order records that the assessee is engaged in the business of providing audio-visual television content and also acts as an advertising agent of Set Satellite Singapore Pvt. Ltd. The assessee distributes these channels to the Indian cable operators and that the assessee has applied the TNM method to determine the arm's length price for its international transaction. It, however, clarified that the order is in respect of reference received for assessment year 2002-03 and not for subsequent assessment years. 12. We may now consider the judgment in Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc's case (supra). The Appeals dealt with the Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and United States. That treaty advocated application of the arm's length principle or provided a mechanism for avoiding double taxation on income. The issue involved, Morgan Stanley and Com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ht in its ruling when it says that once the transfer pricing analysis is undertaken there is no further need to attribute profits to a PE. The Court further noted that the computation of income arising from international transactions has to be done keeping in mind the principle of arm's length price. The Court further reiterated that the main point for determination is whether the AAR was right in ruling that as long as MSAS was remunerated for its services at arm's length, there should be no additional profits attributable to the applicant or to MSAS in India. After considering the various methods by which arm's length price can be determined the Court observed as under :- "As regards determination of profits attributable to a PE in India (MSAS) is concerned on the basis of arm's length principle we have quoted Article 7(2) of the DTAA. According to the AAR where there is an international transaction under which a non-resident compensates a PE at arm's length price, no further profits would be attributable in India. In this connection, the AAR has relied upon Circular No. 23 of 1969 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. This is the key question ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the treaty and the Circular stands. 14. In the light of the above Appeal filed by the Appellant herein is allowed and the order of the ITAT is set aside. Merely because tax on income was paid for some assessment years would not stop the assessee from contending that its income is not liable to tax. The order of CIT is restored except to the extent that it has said that it cannot interfere because the Appellant had paid the tax. That part is set aside. 13. In the light of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court's judgment in the case of Set Satellite (supra), so far as profit attribution of a DAPE is concerned, the legal position is that as long as an agent is paid an arm's length remuneration for the services rendered, nothing survives for taxation in the hands of the dependent agency permanent establishment. Viewed thus, the existence of a dependent agency permanent establishment is wholly tax neutral. 14. An interesting offshoot of this legal position is that, as on now, the existence of dependent agency permanent establishment is of no tax consequence. Whether there is a DAPE or not, the taxation is only of the agent's remuneration, which is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....this forum because Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has taken a specific call on the issue to the effect that the Morgan Stanley decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court covers the DAPE situations as well. In a series of decisions of the coordinate benches, the same view is reiterated. The successive coordinate benches in assessee's own case for different assessment years have upheld the contentions of the assessee and held that once an arm's length remuneration is paid to the agent, nothing further survives for taxation in the hands of the DAPE which, at best, can be brought to tax in the hands of the assessee. In any event, whatever be the academic justification for an alternative approach to the issue, the law laid down by Hon'ble Courts above is to be deeply respected and loyally followed. Respectfully following the law laid down by Hon'ble Courts above and consistent with the stand of the coordinate bench decisions, we uphold the plea of the assessee for the present years as well. We, therefore, hold that even if there is held to be a dependent agency permanent establishment on the facts of this case, as at best the case of the Assessing Officer is, it is who....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee, the transfer pricing adjudication was made while in the present case, no such adjudication was made, and hence the decisions are not applicable as distinguishable on facts". We have also noted that the matter has come up for specific consideration of the Assessing Officer, and yet he has not found any deficiencies on the specific issue of adequacy of arm's length remuneration. It is not that this aspect was not examined. It was examined but the Assessing Officer did not find specific fault in the agent's remuneration not being in accordance with the FAR analysis. He has rather proceeded to, in a way, disregard the foreign entity altogether by suggesting that no business risk is assumed by the foreign company, i.e. the assessee, as the content is provided by the Indian agent and the viewership is Indian, and, for that reason, the viewership is linked to the Indian PE. We have noticed that the Assessing Officer has specifically picked up the aspect of "functions and risk taken by the PE" under that heading and title of the paragraph 5.3.4, in the assessment year 2002-03 for example at page 31 of the assessment order, noted that "there is no reason as to why the assessee s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the present legal position, existence of dependent agency permanent establishment in wholly tax-neutral, unless it is shown that the agent has not been paid an arm's length remuneration, and when it is not the case of the Assessing Officer, as we have noted earlier, that the agents have not been paid an arm's length remuneration, the question regarding the existence of dependent agency permanent establishment, i.e., under article 5(4), is a wholly academic question. We humbly bow to the law laid down by Hon'ble Courts above. The limited argument before us is that here is a case of dependent agency permanent establishment, and the existence of a DAPE, in the light of these discussions, is wholly tax-neutral- particularly in the light of the legal position regarding profit attribution to the DAPE. We need not, therefore, deal with the question about the existence of a DAPE, as it is an academic exercise with no tax effect involved. The related grounds of appeal are thus infructuous. 17. In view of the above position, the issue raised in the departmental appeals is wholly academic and does not call for any adjudication at this stage. 5. We see no reasons to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... without any editing, delays, interruptions, deletions, or additions and, therefore the payment made by the assessee to the Non-resident company is not for use of any copyright and consequently cannot be characterized as Royalty. Ld CIT(A) has held that Broadcasting Reproduction Right is not covered under the definition of Royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Income tax Act as well as Article 12 of the Treaty. Accordingly, the payment is not in the nature of Royalty but in the nature of business income. 8. The second issue is the reliance on definition of term 'process' as defined by the Finance Act 2012 w.e.f. 1st June 1976. So far as assessment years prior to 2012-13 are concerned, the issue is now settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgement in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Ltd vs CIT [(2012) 125 taxmann.com 42 (SC)] wherein their Lorships have held that the insertion of explanation 6, dealing with definition of process, is not retrospective in nature. Even so far as subsequent years are concerned, it is well settled in law, as was also held by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Siemens [(2009) 3170 ITR 320 (Bom)] and by Hon'ble D....