TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (6) TMI 1446
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... re-insurer at 15% and therefore directing the A.O to restrict the disallowance u/s. sec 40(a)(i) to 15%. 2.3 The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that such arbitrary estimation of profit element, is a clear violation of the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G.E India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd.,(327 ITR 456). 2.4 The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that in the above cited case, the Supreme Court has clearly laid down that in cases where the payment made is a composite payment in which certain proportion of payment has an element of Income' chargeable to tax in India and if the assessee is not sure as to what is the taxable portion of the sum paid, he is required to make an application to the ITO (TDS) for determining the amount. 2.5 The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the issue involved in the case of the G.E India technology centre Pvt. Ltd is not re-insurance premium but related to royalty component in the software purchased and does not squarely apply to the facts of the assessee's case. 3.1. The CIT(A) erred in deleting the profit on sale of investments from the total income. 3.2. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Rajendra Prasad Mody 115 ITR 519 wherein it was held that even if no dividend income is earned the provision of section 14A would still be applicable. 5.4 The CIT(A) erred in not following the decision of Kerala High Court in the case of Leena Ramachandran ITA No. 1784 of 2009 dated 14.6.2010 wherein it was held that in respect of acquisition of shares in the form of investment, where the only benefit derived is dividend income which is not assessable under the Act, disallowance u/s. 14A is squarely attracted. 5.5 The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that Section 14A supersedes the principle of law that in the case of a composite business expenditure incurred towards tax free income, the same could not be disallowed and incorporates an implicit theory of apportionment of expenditure between taxable and non-taxable income. 5.6 The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that once a proximate cause for disallowance was established - which is the relationship of the expenditure with income which does not form part of the total income- a disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act has to be effected and ought to have held that where....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the assessee by the decision of ITAT in the assessee's own case. However, he strongly supported the order of the AO and argued that the AO has brought out clear facts to the effect that NRRs have permanent establishment in India in view of their presence and business connection, and thus, reinsurance premium paid to NRRs, is taxable in India, and accordingly, the assessee ought to have deducted TDS u/s. 195 of the Act, on the said payment. Since, the assessee has failed to deduct TDS u/s. 195 of the Act, on reinsurance premium paid to NRRs, the AO has rightly disallowed reinsurance premium paid to NRRs u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act, and their orders should be upheld. 6. We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. We find that an identical issue has been considered by the Tribunal in the assessee's own case in ITA Nos. 1673, 1688, 1689, 1691/Chny/2011 for AYs 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, order dated 26.08.2022, and after considering relevant facts held that reinsurance premium ceded to NRRs, is not taxable in India under the Income Tax Act, 1961 or under DTAA between India and respective countri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der by the IRDAI. In fact, the Assessing Officer has accepted fact that the assessee has complied with reinsurance regulations by taking required percentage of reinsurance contract with General Insurance Corporation of India. But disputed reinsurance premium ceded to non-resident reinsurer companies. In the earlier round of litigation, the Tribunal had discussed the issue of payments made to non-resident reinsurer, in light of provisions of section Insurance Act, 1938 and IRDAI Regulations on reinsurance and concluded that the assessee has violated provisions of Insurance Act, 1938 and consequently, reinsurance premium ceded to NRRI is not deductible u/s. 37 (1) Of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The matter travelled to the Hon'ble High Court of Madras and the Hon'ble High Court has remanded the issue back to the Tribunal and directed the Tribunal to decide the issue on three points:- i) Whether the Assessing Officer was right in disallowing reinsurance premium u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act; ii) Whether the CIT(A) was right in rejecting partially the appeal filed by the assessee; & iii) Whether the CIT(A) was justified in restricting claim of the assessee to 15% ins....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed in India and consequently, the assessee is liable to deduct TDS u/s. 195 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer had also taken support from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Vs CIT (1999) 239 ITR 587 and observed that a person making payment to non-resident is duty bound under section 195(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to file an application to the income-tax authority, if payment is not chargeable to tax or smaller amount is chargeable to tax. If no such application is filed, then tax has to be withheld on whole of such sum. The sum and substance of observations of the Assessing Officer is that income of NRRI is taxable in India and thus, the assessee is liable to deduct tax at source u/s. 195 of the Act. Since, the assessee has failed to deduct TDS u/s. 195 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Assessing Officer has disallowed reinsurance premium ceded to NRRI u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 12. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the reasons given by the Assessing Officer in light of arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the assessee as well as ld. Sr. standing c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....surance premium they receive is recompensated for risk there may be exposed in which event insurer makes a claim on them, in which event assets of the reinsurer that are situated outside India that were utilized to make good the claim and thus premium accrues where their funds and assets are situated, which is outside India. The source of income of NRRI is also outside India. Therefore, in our considered view observations of the Assessing Officer regarding taxability of reinsurance premium ceded to NRRI in India is absolutely contrary to facts and also well settled law. Further, only activity in reinsurance contract is bearing of risk and activity of indemnifying an Indian insurance company by foreign reinsurer takes place overseas and hence, foreign re-insurers bears risk abroad. Therefore, reinsurance premium paid to NRRI cannot be said to accrue or arise in India. Insofar as observations of the Assessing Officer with regard to reinsurance contracts were signed in India is not relevant as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ishikawajima Harima Heavy Industries Ltd. Vs. DIT (2007) 288 ITR 408 (SC), where it was observed that contract signed in India is of no mater....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urance broker in India is only as trustee of insurance money and same is to be held in separate bank account. Therefore, in our considered view, in absence of any authority to conclude contracts on behalf of foreign reinsurer, brokers cannot constitute business connection of foreign reinsurer in India in terms of Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 14. At this point, we would like to take support from decision of the co-ordinate Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of ADIT Vs. AON Global Insurance Service Ltd. in ITA Nos. 5184 to 5186/Mum/2009 dated 30.11.2015, where it has been held that insurance broker is an independent broker and not an agent. Therefore, in our considered view reinsurance premium paid to NRRI, where India is having DTAA with other countries without specific exclusion and reinsurance premium paid to NRRI where there is no DTAA with other countries through resident brokers, no income is chargeable to tax in India in the hands of nonresident reinsurers and consequently, no disallowance can be made u/s. 40 (a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Further, the NRR do not have any business connection in India in any form whatsoever, irre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it of business profits and thus, reinsurance premium ceded to NRRs where there is specific exclusion, same cannot be taxed in India and thus, provisions of section 195 is not applicable while making payments and consequently, the assessee is not required to deduct TDS. In other cases, where there is no specific exclusion of reinsurance premium, said amount can be taxed in India only if foreign reinsurance companies have PE in India. It is the allegation of the Assessing Officer that reinsurer had fixed place of PE or an agency PE or service PE in India. Most of the DTAAs define PE to mean fixed place of business, through which business of the enterprises is wholly and partly carried on and includes branch, office, factory, workshop etc. In the case of foreign reinsurers to whom the assessee has remitted reinsurance premium during the subject assessment years do not have any fixed place of PE in India and thus, question of fixed place of PE in India within the meaning of Article 5 of the DTAA does not arise. In fact, the assessee has obtained declaration from foreign reinsurers which are part of paper book filed by the assessee. Thus, in our considered view there is not fixed place ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... tax in India, if tax is not assessable there is no question of tax at source being deducted. In our considered view, the basis for the Assessing Officer to take support from section 195(2) on the issue of non filing of application to income tax authority to allege that the assessee is liable to deduct TDS on impugned payment is incorrect. 17. Coming back to various case laws relied upon by the assessee. The assessee has relied upon various decisions of co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Insurance companies in support of their arguments. The relevant cases laws relied upon by the assessee are reproduced as under:- Swiss Re-Insurance Company Ltd vs DDIT - ITA No. 1667/Mum/2014 dt .13.02.2015. Summary: In the case of NRRI (Swiss Reinsurance Co. Ltd., Switzerland) the AO sought to tax the NRRI on the ground that it had business connection in India as it received income from providing reinsurance to various insurers in India. The Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal reversing the decision of the AO held as follows: (a) The subsidiary of the NRRI in India does not constitute PE of its holding company (b) Conditions specified in cl (a) t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., it was held that the NRRI does not have a PE in India (c) The Tribunal also took into consideration that the NRRI who is JV partner of the assessee, therein, the assessee was not held to be a FE of the NRRI. ADIT vs AON Global Insurance Service Ltd. - ITA No. 5184- 5186 Mum 2009 dt. 30/11/2015 Summnary: In the case of resident broker (AON Global Insurance Service Ltd) , the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal held that insurance broker is an independent broker and not an agent. It also held that insurance broker does not carry out any activity on behalf of anyone in India and has no authority to enter into any contract in India . The Tribunal examined the scope of section 9(l)(i) and the DTAA and held that the insurance agent has no business activity on behalf of the NRRI. (vi) General Reinsurance AG v DCIT - ITA No. 7433/Mum/2018 Summary: In the case of NRRI (General Reinsurance AG, Germany) the AO sought to tax the NRRI on the ground that it had a business connection and PE in India. The AO in this case held that the reinsurance proposals are procured from the insurance companies or brokers in India, which is a regular and continuous activi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ian insurers to NRRI is not taxable under the Act as well as the DTAA. Therefore, in respect of all categories of reinsurance premium paid to NRRI, income is not chargeable to tax under the Act. (i) M/s. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. DCIT in ITA No. 1718/Mum/2020 dated 25.04.2022: 3.17. Let us now examine the applicability of provisions of Section 40(a)(i) of the Act in respect of reinsurance premium paid to foreign reinsurers. We find that the ld. CIT(A) had placed reliance on the decision of Chennai Tribunal in the case of Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd to drive home the point that the said payment shall be liable for deduction of tax at source in terms of Section 40(a)(i) of the Act. We find that though the Hon'ble Madras High Court in para 26 had held that Chennai Tribunal decision in confirming the action of the ld. AO in invoking provisions of Section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act was not supported with any reasons, finally in para 28, the Hon'ble Madras High Court had remanded this question to the Tribunal to decide whether the ld. AO was right in disallowing the reinsurance premium u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act. Hence, that question n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee by underwriting the risks of various Indian insurance companies. It is not in dispute that the appellant before us is an entity incorporated in Germany and is a tax resident of Germany. The manner in which the reinsurance premium is earned by the assessee is also not in dispute. But to recapitulate, we may note that the appellant is a global re-insurance company which has entered into reinsurance contracts with various Indian insurance companies. For underwriting the risks of the Indian insurance companies, assessee earns reinsurance premiums, which is the subject-matter of dispute before us. So far as the nature of receipts in question is concerned, there is a convergence between the assessee and the Revenue that the same are in the nature of business receipts. It is quite well understood that in such like cases where the foreign company earns business income, the same can be taxed in India only if it has a PE in India or 'business connection' so as to fall within the scope of Indian tax laws. At the outset, it has been asserted by the appellant before us that in such situations, the onus is on the Revenue to establish that the foreign company has a 'business con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al, trading or industrial activity, and thus, the activities of the LO cannot give rise to a 'business connection' within the meaning of Sec. 9(1)(i) of the Act or a PE of the assessee in India, considering that the activities are compliant with the approval granted by IRDA. 18. We may now address the point as to whether the operations of the Indian subsidiary, which have indeed been carried out from India, can be construed as enabling invoking of 'business connection' of the assessee as envisaged under Section 9(1)(i) of the Act or whether the Indian subsidiary constitutes a PE of assessee in India. Article 5(1) of the India- Germany Tax Treaty provides that PE means a fixed place of business through which the business or enterprise is wholly or partially carried on. On this aspect, the case set-up by the Revenue is that the key functions of reinsurance business, namely, actuarial services and underwriting services are provided by the Indian subsidiary. Such discussion is contained in paras 9.7.2 to 9.8 of the final order of the Assessing Officer. On this aspect, we have carefully examined the contentions put forth by the Revenue as well as the material on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vities of the reinsurance business of the assessee are carried out in or from India by the Indian subsidiary. 19. Moreover, in the context of Article 5(1) of the India Germany Tax Treaty, what is essential is to examine whether there exists an assessee's fixed place of business in India or not. Factually or legally speaking, the place of business of Indian subsidiary per-se can in no way be equated to mean the fixed place of business of the assessee in India. In fact, in this connection, the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of E funds IT Solution Inc (supra) are very apt. In para 12 of its order, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with in detail, by making reference to the findings of the Hon'ble High Court, and concluded that there was no fixed place PE of the assessee before it on the facts of the case before it. One of the points noted by the Hon'ble High Court was that the foreign company was dependent on the Indian subsidiary for earning its income. This aspect was specifically negated and held not to be a relevant criteria to determine whether there existed a fixed place PE or not. Similarly, the manner and mode of carrying o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rectly. Therefore, factually also, we find no support for the case of the Revenue that the Indian subsidiary constitutes a dependent PE of assessee in India. 21. Before we conclude, we may also refer to some of the precedents which have been cited before us in order to establish that in somewhat similar situations, foreign companies engaged in reinsurance business have not been found to be having a fixed PE or an agency PE in India in the form of an Indian subsidiary. (ii) In this context, reference has been invited to the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Swiss re-Insurance Co. Ltd. vs DDIT(IT), [2015] 55 taxmann.com 520 (Mumbai - Trib.), which according to the learned representative, is directly on the point. We have perused the said decision and find that the factual matrix which prevails in the instant case before us is similar to what has been considered in the case of Swiss re-Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra). In para 2.1 of the order, the relevant facts have been noted and the discussion reveals that the facts before us are quite similar to the case before our co-ordinate Bench. It was the case of a reinsurance company based in Switzerla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n holding that there exists a 'business connection' in India under Section 9(1)(i) of the Act and also that there exists a PE in India within the meaning of Article 5(1) and/or 5(4) of the India-Germany Tax Treaty. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby set-aside the order of Assessing Officer and uphold the stand of the assessee. As a consequence, so far as Ground of appeal nos. 1 to 4 are concerned, the same are treated as allowed. 3.19. Similar view was taken by the Co-ordinate Bench of Pune Tribunal in the case of Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. ,vs. DCIT in ITA No. 2560/PN/2012 for A.Y. 2008-09 dated 03/02/2016 vide paras 26-43. For the sake of brevity, the relevant operative portion of that Pune Tribunal order is not reproduced herein. 3.20. It is a fact that in the impugned case of the assessee before us, i.e. Tata AIG Insurance, it is not in dispute that foreign reinsurer does not have any place of business or branch or any business connection or permanent establishment in India. Hence, the payments made by the assessee company to the said foreign insurer is not chargeable to tax in India in the hands of the foreign reinsurer in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that where there is no specific exclusion, the reinsurance business would be deemed to be a PE in the other contracting state." (Underlining provided by this Tribunal) 3.23. We hold that the aforesaid observation of the ld. CIT(A) is incorrect in view of the aforesaid decision of Mumbai Tribunal dated 13/02/2015 and in view of the fact that Article 5(4) of the treaty does not apply to reinsurer. Moreover, the ld. CIT(A) accepts the existence of independent brokers involved and if it is so, it cannot constitute a PE. 3.24. Hence, the entire observations of the lower authorities had been duly addressed in the aforesaid findings by us. At the cost of repetition, we would like to reiterate the fact that there is absolutely no dispute that the foreign reinsurers does not have any place of business in India / permanent establishment in India / branch established in India / Liaison office in India. Hence, any payment made by the assessee company to such foreign insurers would not be chargeable to tax in the hands of the foreign reinsurers in India in terms of Section 195(1) of the Act. Accordingly, as stated earlier, there would be no obligation on the part of ....