TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 255
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for the sake of convenience. 3. The assessee, presently known as M/s. UK Grid Solutions Ltd and erstwhile known as M/s. Alstom Grid UK Ltd filed its return of income for AY 2016-17 on 30.11.2016 declaring total income of Rs. 13,49,87,780/-. The assessee is in the business of designing, manufacturing, testing, post handling and supply of electronic equipment and help in the transmission and distribution of power, commissioning and servicing of transmission and distribution systems on turnkey basis. The assessee stated that it is a foreign company incorporated in United Kingdom (UK) and is tax resident therein. The assessee stated that it had received payments from various customers in India and claimed that certain receipts are not taxable in India on account of India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). The various receipts of the assessee as disclosed in Form 3CEB and that reflected in Form 26AS are tabulated as under:- Payer*<* (a) Total Receipts As Per 26AS /GBP (b) (Rs.) Offered to TAX out of (b) (C) (Rs.) Nature and Taxability (as claimed by the assessee in respect of amount in column V) Not offered to TAX by the Assessee in ITR for AY 2016-17 7 (e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an associated enterprise namely M/s ALSTOM T&D India Ltd. (ALSTOM- I now known as General Electric T&D India Ltd.) [GETDIL on short]. 5. The ld AO concluded that even though the main single contract was artificially divided into three sub-contracts by the assessee, all the responsibilities and liabilities of the project were vested with the assessee itself i.e. UK Grid. The relevant part of the contract is reproduced as under. "Whereas the associate proposed by, ALSTOM ALSTOM (Now UK Grid) has been accepted by the Employer Vas above subject to the condition that ALSTOM (Now UK Grid) shall be overall responsible and liable for the execution of all the three Contracts irrespective of the fact that the Employer will enter into the 'First Contract with them and the 'Second Contract' and the 'Third Contract' with ALSTOM- 6. The assessee has claimed that it has only been awarded the First Contract for execution, whereas the Second and Third Contracts have been awarded to its Indian Associate i.e. GE T&D India Ltd. (GE T&D India). Therefore, the assessee's contention is that if it has nothing to do with the other contracts, its taxability should not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e supply component of the project cannot be delinked with the entire set of activities that contribute to the completion of the project. Rather, the offshore supply is governed by the project site itself. 9. Accordingly, the ld AO concluded that it is established beyond doubt that the assessee company has been awarded a single composite contract in respect of a turnkey power project by PGCIL. This was artificially segregated into three separate contracts offshore and onshore subsequently. Even if the construction of contracts may have been laid out in the tender itself, it is essential to understand the intent of doing so. The segregation, as is clearly evident from the tender and contract documents, is a consequential exercise in the instant case to simply facilitate execution of the contract. It has not been carried out with the intention of carving out an entirely independent role for the assessee that is more restrictive in scope and responsibility than what was originally intended. Further, the tender document does not mandate the involvement of an Indian associate for the completion of work under the contract. It is an option available for the contractor to exercise. The I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anent Establishment (PE) in India. 13. The ld AO proceeded to tax the receipts from offshore supply under PGCIL Contract amounting to Rs. 599,49,48,889/- u/s 44BBB(1) of the Act by computing profit @10% thereon amounting to Rs. 59,94,94,888/- and taxed the same @40% plus applicable surcharge and cess. In respect of the offshore sales other than the PGCIL contract amounting to INR 468,42,64,711/-, it was held that these also constitute business receipts and are attributable to the business connection of the assessee in India. The profit rate on such receipts was assumed at 10%, being the standard benchmarking followed by the Act in various cases, which worked out to Rs. 46,84,26,471/- and taxed the same @ 40% plus applicable surcharge and education cess. In respect of the income from the assessee's group company amounting to Rs 20,84,14,276/-, it was held that these are in the nature of Fees for Technical Services u/s 9(1)(vii) of the Act and are taxable as per Section 115A of the Act. The assessee has offered Rs. 13,27,70,236/- out of the said amount. The balance amount of Rs. 7,56,44,040/- is being brought to tax as FTS taxable u/s 115A of the Act. 14. The assessee prefe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ily holding that the Appellant had business connection in India during the subject assessment year. 6. That the DRP/ assessing officer erred on facts and in law in arbitrarily holding that GE T&D India Limited ("GETDIL") constitutes Fixed Place Permanent Establishment ("PE") of the Appellant in India. 7. That the DRP/ assessing officer erred on facts and in law in arbitrarily holding that GETDIL constitutes Dependent Agent PE of the Appellant in India and that the Appellant has Installation/ Construction PE in India. 8. That the DRP/ assessing officer erred on facts and in law in attributing 100% profits from offshore supplies made to PGCIL to the alleged business connection/ PE. 9. Without prejudice, that the DRP/ assessing officer erred on facts and in law in computing income from offshore supplies by applying section 44BBB of the Act. 10. That the DRP/ assessing officer erred on facts and in law in alleging that the Appellant was awarded single composite contract on turnkey basis, which was artificially split into three separate contracts to avoid establishment of PE in India and to avoid payment of legitimate taxes in India. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1 raised by the assessee is general in nature and does not require any specific adjudication. 17. Ground No. 2 raised by the assessee was stated to be not pressed by the ld AR at the time of hearing. The same is reckoned as a statement made from the bar and accordingly, ground No. 2 is hereby dismissed as not pressed. 18. We find that the majority of the other grounds raised by the assessee are covered by the order of this Tribunal in assessee's own case in ITA No. 2087/Del/2022 for AY 2018-19 dated 12.04.2023. For the sake of convenience, the relevant portion of the Tribunal order is reproduced below:- "9. Ground no 3 to 8.Ld. Sr. Counsel for the assessee/ appellant contended that Ld. Tax Authorities below have erred in understanding the nature of three agreements entered between the assessee, its associate ALSTOM-I and employer PGCIL. It was submitted that Ld. Tax Authorities have fallen in error in concluding that there was an artificial splitting of the contract between the assessee and ALSTOM-I. Referring to the contracts executed between the assessee and PGCIL, made available on page no. 6 to 249 of the paper book, it was submitted that engaging an Associate w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e was no legal and financial dependency between the assessee and its associates. 9.4 Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that the assessee had earned revenues from offshores supplies and no activity was performed in India for earning its revenue. He specifically stressed on fact that no employee of assessee visited India and as such there is no branch or place of business in India. 9.4.1 As with regard to Dependent PE it was submitted the Tax Authorities have not discussed any evidence and an incorrect observation is made by Ld. AO that GE India was actively involved in soliciting business for the assessee as the assessee had procured the contract by way of open bidding. 9.5 It was submitted that the Associate was engaged in independent contracts under the bid and was independent entity. Referring to the financial statements of GE T &D India Limited, available on page no. 429 to 437 for F.Y. 2017-18 and 438-445 for F.Y. 2018-19 it was submitted that related party transactions have been disclosed and it was submitted that the Indian associates has several independent source of revenue. The income earned from the two contracts was independently offered to Tax under t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....PE") under the India-UK DTAA he referred to the Copy of India-UK DTAA and section 182 of Indian Contract Act, 1872. He also cited judgments in National Petroleum Construction Company vs DIT: 383 ITR 648 (Del), Western Union Financial Services Incvs ADIT: 101 TTJ 56 (Del Trib.), Mitsui & Co Ltd vs ACIT: ITA No.4764/Del/2016 (Del Trib.), ITO vs International Reinsurance and Insurance Consultancy & Broking Services (P) Ltd: 142 taxmann.com 509 (Mum Trib.), DCIT vs Adobe Systems Software Ireland Ltd: ITA Nos.1978/Del/2019 &Ors. dated 27.07.2022 (Del Trib.), Net App BV vs DDIT: [2017] 78 taxmann.com 97 (Del Trib.), TVM Ltd vs CIT: 237 ITR 230 (AAR) and KronesAktiengesellschaftvs CIT: ITA No.907/Del/2017 dated 30.12.2022 (Del Trib.) 9.8.5 The Ld. Sr. Counsel stressed that the onus is on Department to prove existence of PE and for that he relied CIT vs eFunds IT Solution: 399 ITR 34 (SC), DIT vs Samsung Heavy Industries Co Ltd: 426 ITR 1 (SC), DIT vs Mitsui & Co Ltd: 399 ITR 505 (Del) and AB SciexPte Ltd vs ACIT: 195 ITD 384 (Del Trib.) 9.8.6 As with regard to principles of attribution to business connection/ PE he relied DIT vs Morgan Stanley & Co Inc: 292 ITR 416 (SC),....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te as PE was involved throughout the contract period. DRP observed that the off-shore supply of equipment's by the assessee would have been rendered meaningless in the absence of service of supervision, erection, commissioning etc. all of which was an integral and indivisible part of the contract. 13. So the key question is if this was independent contract as claimed by assessee or there was artificial spilt of one contract to the benefit of assessee. into three contracts leading to evasion of tax. The first and a very important concept that has to kept in mind is that the controversy regarding taxability event, in case of complex arrangement of contacts, may arise at several stages and with different tax incidences. The adjudication of an issue should be on basis of wholesome reading of the contract and context of terms. In regard to this principle of law the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ishikawajma-Harima Heavy Industries Ltd. (supra) has observed in para no. 60 as follows :- "In construing a contract, the terms and conditions there of are to be read as a whole. A contract must be construed keeping in view the intention of the parties. No doubt, the applicabilit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "Second Contract for Ex-works supply of Plant and Equipment including mandatory Spares from within India and Type Test to be conducted within India (also referred to as On- Shore Supply Contract), and Third Contract for all services to be performed in India covering, inter alia, port handling, port clearance, inland transportation, insurance, delivery at site, handling, storage, erection including associated civil works, testing and commissioning of all equipment and materials, including the equipment supplied under the First Contract end the Second Contract, Training in India etc. (also referred to as On-Shore Services Contract). WHEREAS M/s. ALSTOM Grid UK Limited in their Bid, had proposed M/s. ALSOM T&D India Limited having its Registered Office at A-18, First Floor, Okhla Noida-201301, U.P. Area, Phase-ll, New Delhi-110020 and business address as A-7, Sector-65, ca-201301, (hereinafter referred to as "ALSTOM-1" as their Associate for the purpose of executing the On-Shore Supply Contract and On-Shore Services Contract) furnished "ALSTOM-1" written unequivocal consent vide their letter dated 26.11.2011 (enclosed in their First Stage to work as Employer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7/G10/CA- 111/4337 between the Employer and the Contractor's Associate ALSTOM-1 has also been made on 17.08.2012, respectively for the On-Shore Supply Contract (also referred to as the 'Second Contract') and On-Shore Services Contract (also referred to as the Third Contract'). The scope of 'Second Contract' includes Design, engineering, manufacture, testing at manufacturer's works and Ex-works supply of all the equipment and materials including mandatory spares from within India and Type Testing, as detailed in the Contract Documents of said contract, required' for the complete execution of +/-800kV, 3000 MW HVDC Terminal Package associated with Western / Northern Region Interconnector for IPP Projects in Chhattisgarh under "National Grid Improvement Project". The scope of 'Third Contract' includes all services to be performed covering, inter alia, port handling, port clearance, inland transportation, insurance, delivery at site, handling, storage, erection including associated civil works, testing and commissioning of all the Plant and Equipment including mandatory Spares supplied under the Off- Shore Contract and On-Shore Supply Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....STOM INDIA) (earlier known as M/s. AREVA T&D India Limited) shall be your Associate for the purpose of executing the On-Shore Supply Contract and On-Shore Services Contract (refer para 2.2 below) and furnished ALSTOM INDIA'S written consent vide their letter dated 26.11.2011. 12.1 We confirm having accepted your Bid referred to at para 1.3, 1.7 & 1.8 above) read in conjunction with all the specifications, terms & conditions of the Bidding Documents (referred to at para 1.2, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3 & 1.6 above) and your confirmations as per the documents referred above, and award on you the 'Off-Shore Contract' (also referred to as the 'First Contract') covering inter-alia supply on CIF Indian Port of Entry of all equipment and materials, mandatory spares including Type Testing to be conducted outside India, Training to be imparted abroad for the complete execution of the +/-800kV, 3000 MW HVDC Terminal Package associated with Western / Northern Region Interconnector for IPP Projects in Chhattisgarh under "National Grid Improvement Project". as detailed in the Bidding Documents referred hereinabove. The scope of work inter-alia includes the following: Design....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the First Contract and the Second Contract. Training in India etc. required for the complete execution of +800kV, 3000 MW HVDC Terminal Package associated with Western / Northern Region Interconnector for IPP Projects in Chhattisgarh under "National Grid Improvement Project" Notwithstanding the award of work under three separate Contracts in the aforesaid manner, you shall be overall responsible to ensure the execution of all the three Contracts to achieve successful completion and taking over of the works under the package by the Employer as per the requirements stipulated in the Bidding Documents. It is expressly understood and agreed by you that any default or breach by your Associate M/s. ALSTOM T&D India Limited under the Second Contract and/or the Third Contract shall automatically be deemed as a default or breach of this 'First Contract' also and vice-versa, and any such default or breach or occurrence, giving us a right to terminate the 'Second Contract and/or Third Contract, either in full or in part, and/or recover damages under those contract(s), shall give us an absolute right to terminate this Contract, at your risk, cost and responsibility, eithe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt of the contract as the part of proposal at the bid stage itself. This ofshore contract specifically mentions that ALSTOM-1 shall be 'independent contractor' of PGCIL on the terms and conditions as laid down in the bidding document. Article 6 of this document dated 17.08.2012 specifically makes reference to ALSTOM-I's 'written unequivocal consent to work as the independent contractor of PGCIL' and that separate contracts have been entered between PGCIL and Indian Associate of the assesse, ALSTOM- I, on the same date 17.08.2012 for the second and third contract. 18. The aforesaid discussion of the relevant clauses leave no doubt in the mind of this Bench that at the stage of bid itself ALSTOM-I had joined the assessee in terms of the requirement of the bid. These clauses and stipulations go on to establish that there was a collaborative effort of the assessee and the Indian associate and as such there was not actually a consortium to which one contract was awarded with bifurcation at level of the members of Consortium. The award of separate off shore contract by the PGCIL to assessee and on shore contracts to the permitted associate ALSTOM-I, which was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was on the part of ALSTOM to execute second and third contract, merely as an assurance that at advance stage after the bid is accepted and before the contract is actually executed the bid is not frustrated. In any case when the three contract stand executed on 17.08.2012, the issues discussed in the meeting between 03.07.2012 and 05.07.2012 became superfluous but Ld. DRP has unnecessarily stressed upon the same to draw a conclusion that primary commitment in all the three contracts was of the assessee. 20.2 Further in para 5.2, the Ld. DRP has reproduced para 3.2 of the notification of award dated 21.06.2012 without understanding the context in which the same was made. As for the convenience para 5.2 of the order of DRP is reproduced as below :- "5.2 It has also been clarified at para 3.2 therein that- "3.2 Notwithstanding the break-up of the Contract Price, the Contract shall, at all times, be construed as a single source responsibility Contract and any breach in any part of the Contract shall be treated as a breach of the entire Contract," a matter of fact that this para 3.2 is part of clause 3.0 in notification of award, which makes reference....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation of scope of the word for second and third contract awarded to ASTOM-I. Thus Ld. DRP has fallen in error to conclude there is no separate delineation of work. 21. Lastly, the major focus of tax authorities below and Ld. DR has also been on the fact that under the bid and the three contracts the ultimate responsibility of execution and liability in case of breach remained with the assessee. In this context, the Bench is of considered opinion that the business prudence involving such major infrastructure projects cannot be examined and questioned by the revenue authorities attributing bare motives and to assume that the different contracts under one bid are with only intention to escape taxation. Such arrangements are more out of business prudence and usually for the safeguard of the rights of Indian entity, like PGCIL, which negotiates and gets executed such infrastructural facility contracts. The intention being successful commissioning of the project and that it is not abandoned or frustrated due to involvement of many parties, each performing some part, by shouldering any delay or latches, on other unrelated party. 21.1 In this context, reliance can be plac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tood by taking an illustration of a simple project for construction of a building. It is only after an Architect or a Designer provides the detailed drawings that a civil contractor can commence construction. Similarly, it is only after the civil construction is commenced and progressed to a certain level that space for electrical contractors is available for them to perform their work. The work of Interior finishing can take place only after the civil works are complete. The fact that each of the aforesaid agencies, namely, the architect, the civil and electrical contractors are required to complete their work in a pre- determined sequence and are required to cooperate with each other in providing the necessary information and adhering to a specified schedule would not necessarily imply that the architect, civil contractors and electrical contractors had formed an Association of Persons. In this illustration each one of the participants works towards a common project with a certain level of cooperation. However, since the said participants do not act as a single cohesive entity, but perform their independent allocated works, they cannot be considered as an Association of Persons. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....verall objective of successful commissioning of the project." 23. Thus, the bench is of considered opinion that the Ld. Tax Authorities below have fallen in error in concluding that there was an artificial split of a contract and that there was one inseparable, indivisible and composite contract. 24. On the basis of aforesaid discussion the question of assessee having a permanent establishment (PE) can be examined. Ld. AO has not given any substantial reason on the basis of evidence while what weighted heavily in the mind of Ld. DRP was that the supply of equipment on the basis of off-shore contract would have been rendered meaningless in the absence of services of supervision, erection commissioning etc. all of which was an indivisible part of the contract. 25. The Bench is of considered opinion that when the allegation of the Revenue about an artificial split of contract is not sustained and it is established that the assessee has entered into the 'First Contract', in its independent capacity, there is no force in the finding of Ld. that GE India (Alostom-I) was actively involved in soliciting business for the assessee. In fact, there is substan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was existence of a PE. The assessee under the 'First contract' was merely under obligation to make off shore supplies and wherein property in the goods transferred outside Indian, therefore as Section 44BBB does not speak of engagement of a foreign company for 'supply' in connection with the turnkey Power Project, the provisions of Section 44BBB are not applicable. Thus Ld. DRP has fallen in error in sustaining application of Section 44BBB of the Act, on premises that the assessee is involved in the end to end execution of the project in India. The revenue derived by the assessee were on the basis of offshore supplies and not out of any construction, erection, testing or commissioning activities of a turnkey power project in India. Thus, the application of section 44BBB to such revenue, which is not per se taxable India, is not sustainable. 28. It also appears that the Revenue is not disputing the fact that under the 'First Contract' assessee was only supposed to make off shore supplies. Otherwise too it is appearing from the recitals of 'First Contract' that the procurement by PGCIL, was on the basis of, "CIF Indian Port of Entry supply". T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....SFO Technologies- Ld. AO did not follow DRP directions Ld. Sr. Counsel relied ESPN Star Sports Mauritius SNCET Companies vs Union of India: 388 ITR 383 (Del), Global One India Pvt Ltd vs DCIT: ITA No.1980/Del/2014 (Del Trib.)and he submitted such addition is not sustainable. Ld. DR however, supported the findings of Ld. Tax Authorities below. 31. It can be appreciated in regard to these grounds that Ld. DRP in para 5.15 of its order had specifically directed the Ld. AO that receipts on account of offshores supplies made by the assessee to GE T&D and SFO, if they are not related to the PGCIL contract, which is the basis of addition in the draft assessment order, be deleted. Ld. AO in para 20 of final assessment order observed as follows:- "20. In view of the directions of the Hon'ble DRP the receipts from GE T& D India Ltd. and SFO Technologies have been re-examined and it is held that Since the company constituted a dependent agent PE in India (GET&D) as far as the assessee's entire operations in India were concerned and the same has upheld by the Ld. DRP. It is pertinent to mention here that once PE has been established for a transaction, it needs not to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ations while Ld. DRP observed that the specialize / customize training provided by the assessee to the users for assessee and use of specific technical content available for their business 'make available' technical knowledge, skill and experience within the meaning of and scope of Article 13 of the DTAA. It has taken into consideration certain specific services on account of which the assessee had received global operation fees. The relevant para 6.3 of the order of ld. DRP is reproduced below :- "6.3 On perusal of the relevant Global Operation Fees Agreements for the years 2017 and 2018 entered into between GE T&D India Ltd and the assessee, which are available in the paper book filed in DRP proceedings, the following services, inter alia, are seen to be provided therein under the respective Heads a) Technical support for manufacturing process. b) Test system- which includes Test System design, Test Software development and provision for upgrades and new products, design and provision of test jigs and fixtures, providing of technical support in respect of system failure, process performance, spares and maintenance and Training of local support e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... DCIT (International Taxation): [2022] 194 ITD 253 (Del Trib.), Anand NVH Products Incvs ACIT: ITA No.1951/Del/2021 (Del Trib.), NTT Asia Pacific Holdings Pte Ltd vs. ACIT: 196 ITD 591 (Mum Trib.), Raymond Ltd vs DCIT: 86 ITD 791 (Mum Trib.), GE Energy Management Services Incvs ADIT: 193 ITD 485 (Del Trib.), Bombardier Transportation Sweden AB vs DCIT: 90 ITR(T) 405 (Del Trib.), Bio Rad Laboratories Incvs ACIT: ITA No.994 & 996/Del/2022 dated 30.12.2022 (Del Trib)Ld. 34.1 Supporting his contention that Managerial services are not FTS in absence of 'managerial word in India-UK DTAA the Id. Sr. Counsel relied Steria (India) Ltd vs CIT: 386 ITR 390 (Del) and Everest Global Incvs DDIT: 194 ITD 729 (Del Trib.). Ld. DR however, defended the findings. 35. In this context, it can be observed that the Global Operation Fees Agreement made available at page no. 372-396 of paper book along with copy of invoices available at page no. 397-403 of the paper book establish, that the assessee had agreed to provide services which included industrialization of products, sources and procurement of raw materials, setting quality standers, supply general and contracts. The industria....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om offshore supplies made to PGCIL to the alleged business connections/ PE 9.8.6 and 29 11 and 30 9 Applicability of provision of section 44BB of the Act 9.8.3 and 28 10,28 and 29 10. Whether single composite contract was artificially split into three separate contract 9.8 11 to 23 10, 12 to 27 12 to 15 Offshore supply receipts from SFO Technologies and GETDIL 30 to 32 30 to 32 16-17 Global operation fees from GETDIL as fees for technical services (FTS) 33 to 35 32 to 35 20. Ground No. 3 raised by the assessee is challenging the denial of treaty benefit under India UK DTAA to the assessee by holding that the assessee cannot be treated as tax resident of UK. 21. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the assessee had enclosed a certificate issued by HM Revenue and Customs, UK certifying that assessee is a tax resident in UK for the year 2015. This is enclosed in page 308 of the Paper Book. Similar certificate for the year 2016 & 2017 are enclosed in pages 311 and 313 of the Paper Book respectively. The said certificate specifical....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ittedly, the assessee is a company. Admittedly, UK tax authorities had issued tax residency certificate for assessee clearly stating that it is a tax resident of UK even as per Article 4 of India-UK DTAA. In our considered opinion, once the assessee is a tax resident of UK as per Article 3(g) read with Article 4 of India-UK DTAA, the mechanism of tax assessment and recovery of tax will follow thereafter. The expression "liable to tax" mentioned in Article 4 of India UK DTAA is to be understood in the manner that whether a particular person is obligated to pay tax in that respective country or not. If it is obligated to get taxed in that country, then depending upon its income, recovery of tax would happen on its own and tax mechanism for framing tax assessment would get triggered. Hence, we hold that the assessee herein is a tax resident of UK which fact is also confirmed by the Tax Residency Certificate issued by the UK Tax authorities specifically confirming that the assessee is a tax resident even as per Article 4 of the India-UK DTAA. Having held that the assessee is a tax resident of UK, it would be automatically entitled for treaty benefits. Accordingly, ground No. 3 raised b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 28. Ground No. 18 raised by the assessee is challenging the levy of interest u/s 234B and 234D of the Act on the ground that the buyer has deducted tax at source and remitted to the account of the Central Govt in accordance with the proviso to section 209(1)(d) of the Act and hence there would be no liability for the assessee to pay advance tax. In the present case, PGCIL, who is buyer of offshore supplies made by the assessee which has been brought to tax by the ld AO in the final assessment order, had duly deducted tax at source before making the said payment. Hence, it was submitted that there was no default on the part of the assessee in payment of advance tax. This issue is no longer res integra in the view of the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of BG International Vs. JCIT in ITA 62/DDN/2019 for AY 2015-16 dated 24.02.2020, wherein, it was held in para 32 and 33 as under:- "32. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The AO while computing the income in the hands of the assessee has charged interest u/s 234B of the Act at Rs. 39.46 crores (approx.). The assessee is aggrieved by the aforesaid charging of the inter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve for ground No. 18 for AY 2016-17 shall apply mutatis mutandis for this year also. With regard to chargeability of interest u/s 234C of the Act, the law is well settled that the said interest should be charged only on the returned income and not on the assessed income. 34. In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 in ITA No. 885/Del/2023 is partly allowed. ITA No. 2239/Del/2023 AY 2015-16 35. All the grounds raised by the assessee for AY 2015-16 are identical with those raised for AY 2016-17. Accordingly, decision rendered by us hereinabove for AY 2016-17 shall apply mutatis mutandis for AY 2015-16 also except with variance in figures. 36. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 2239/Del/2023 for AY 2015-19 is partly allowed. ITA No. 2240/Del/2023 AY 2020-21 37. The ground Nos. 1 to 17 raised by the assessee for AY 2020-21 are identical with the grounds raised for AY 2016-17 and hence, the decision rendered thereon for AY 2016-17 shall apply mutatis mutandis for AY 2020-21 also except with variance in figures. 38. Ground No. 18 of the assessee is challenging the chargeability of interest u/s 234A of the Act. The ld AO is directed t....