THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HYUNDAI HEAVY INDUSTRIES LTD
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that all issues in the appeals were concluded by findings of fact. The Court agreed with the ITAT's reasoning that Instruction No. 1767 is a guideline and computation can be made under the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act read with the guidelines. The ITAT's decision to apply a rate of 3% for profits from Indian operations was considered fair and reasonable. The Court also noted that the ITAT rightly rejected the argument of zero profit on Indian operations. The principle that a specific provision overrides a general provision was also affirmed. Consequently, the Court found no substantial question of law arising from the ITAT's orders and no illegality or infirmity therein, thus agreeing with the ITAT's decisions.
What were the facts?
The appeals were filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax and Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax against the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The assessee, M/s Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd., a South Korean non-resident company, entered into a contract with ONGC for a project. For assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89, the assessee declared Nil income, claiming no Permanent Establishment (PE) in India as per the India-Korea Double Taxation Avoidance Convention (CADT), stating Indian operations were less than nine months. The Assessing Officer held the company had a PE and assessed income at 2% of receipts. CIT(Appeals) confirmed PE but adjusted profit rates. The ITAT upheld the PE finding but reduced profit rates to 3% for Indian operations and Nil for outside India operations, while upholding the rejection of Nil income claim under Section 145.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the ITAT was correct in taking a contradictory approach regarding the Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, specifically concerning the application of Article 5 of the Convention for Avoidance of Double Taxation (CADT) between India and Korea? (Question of law) Assessee's contentions (as understood from the judgment's discussion of ITAT's findings): - Article 5(3) of the CADT, being a specific provision, overrides general provisions like Article 5(1) and 5(2). - If a construction project does not exceed nine months, an office supporting it cannot be considered a PE under Article 5(1) and 5(2). - Income from outside India operations should be Nil. Revenue's contentions (as understood from the judgment's discussion of ITAT's findings): - The ITAT was correct in rejecting the assessee's argument of zero profit on Indian operations and in applying Section 145. - Instruction No. 1767 is a guideline, and computation can be made under the Act read with guidelines. - The ITAT's finding that a specific provision overrides a general provision was rightly held.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
common order.
Appeal No.448 of 2001 (Old No.326 of 2000) has been filed by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 17.02.2000 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (in short 'ITAT') in I.T.A. No. 8751(Del)/92 (Assessment year 1989-90), whereby the ITAT has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee in part.
Appeal Nos.473/2001, 474/2001 & 475/2001 have been filed by the appellants against the common order dated 03.5.2000 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (in short 'ITAT') in ITA Nos.2494/Del/93 (Assessment years 1986-87, 1987-88
and 1988-89), 5612/Del/91 and 5467/Del/91 respectively (both Assessment years 1987-88 and 1988- 89), whereby the learned ITAT has dismissed the cross objections of the Revenue on the agreement of the parties that the issue involved in the present cross objections stand covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Tribunal in I.T.A. Nos. 162 to 165 (Del) of 1998 dated 29th March, 2000. 3. Brief facts are that the assessee is a non- resident foreign company incorporated in South Korea. It entered into an agreement with Oil and Natural Gas Commission (ONGC) on 12.3.1985 in respect of the South Bassein Field Central Complex Facilities (hereinafter referred to as the 'Project'). The services under the contract comprised design, engineering, fabrication, installation, commissioning and the outside India portion of the work involved designing, engineering and fabrication. The Company had filed returns for the assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89 declaring Nil income. In the income of return the assessee claimed, inter alia, that it did not have a Permanent Establishment (hereinafter referred to as 'PE') in India, in terms of Article 5 of the Convention for Avoidance of Double Taxation between the Government of India and Government of Korea (hereinafter referred to as 'CADT') and, therefore, in accordance with Article 7 it was not assessable to tax in India. It was claimed that the Indian operations under the contract commenced on 01.11.1986 and these were completed on 12.4.1987 and since the period was less than 9 months, it would not constitute a 'PE' in India. The assessee also referred to a communication dated 11.2.1987 from the ONGC which
stated that the execution of work relating to Indian portion had commenced from 09.12.1986 at the off shore location and tentative completion was scheduled by the end of March. The assessment for both the assessment years was completed on 29.3.1990 holding that the company was having PE for both the assessment years and assessed income taking 2% on receipts in respect of inside India activities. Notice was issued for the assessment year 1986-87 on 30.3.1990 and assessment was completed on 08.6.1992 under Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements.
Aggrieved with the Assessment Orders, assessee preferred appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Dehradun who held that the Assessee Company did have a 'PE' but reduced the income in respect of receipts for outside India operations to 1% and for inside India operations to 10%, taking principle of Instruction No.1767 dated 01.7.1987. 5. Aggrieved with the order of CIT (Appeals), the assessee company preferred second appeal for all the three years before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The ITAT upheld the findings of CIT (Appeals) as regards PE but reduced income to 3% in respect of inside India activities and Nil in respect of outside India activities. The ITAT in its judgment recorded finding that no income accrued to the assessee in India in respect of the activities admittedly carried on in Korea. In respect of income for inside India activities the ITAT upheld the finding of the Assessing Officer for application of Section 145 rejecting the claim of the assessee Nil income. It was also recorded that Instruction No.1767 is after all a
guideline and computation can be made under the relevant provisions of the Act read with the guidelines.
We heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment. The learned counsel for the appellants raised a question that whether the learned ITAT was correct in taking a contradictory approach. The learned ITAT has given a specific finding regarding Permanent Establishment in Para 44 (B) of its judgment. On the question whether the assessee had a PE in India, Article 5 of the CADT is being reproduced as under:- "(1) For the purpose of this Convention, the term "permanent establishment” means a fixed place of business through which the business of an enterprise is wholly or partly carried on.
(2) The term "permanent establishment” shall include especially -
(a) a place of management;
(b) a branch; (c) an office; (d) a factory; (e) a workshop; and (f) a mine, an oil or gas well, a quarry or any other place of extraction of natural
resources.
(3) The term "permanent establishment” likewise encompasses a building site, a construction, assembly or installation project or supervisory activities in connection therewith, but only where such site, project or activities continue for a period of more than nine months.”
The ITAT in its judgment has recorded that the learned counsel stated that sub-clause (1) of the Article 5 of the CADT generally provided that affixed place of business would be regarded a "PE" if the assessee carried on his business wholly or partly from this fixed
place. Article 5(2) provided that the term "PE" would include six locations referred to therein. According to the learned counsel, the six locations could become PEs only if they satisfied the tests laid down in Article 5 (1) i.e. the business of the enterprise was wholly or partly carried on through such locations. Article 5(3) according to the learned counsel was a specific provision and it was well- settled that a specific provision overrides the general provision. The plea in concluding was that Article 5(3) was an exception to Article 5(1) and Article 5(2) and where a building, side or construction assemble or installation project does not exist for a period exceeding nine months, an office rendering support services to such project could not be regarded as a PE within the meaning of Article 5(1) and 5(2) since Article 5(3) was a specific provision. The ITAT has also recorded in its finding that we are not sufficiently convinced to treat income from India operations at Rs. NIL for assessment year 1988-89, specially when the assessee had failed even before the tax authorities to support its facts and figures and we have upheld application to Section 145. The ITAT was right in rejecting the argument of zero profit on the Indian operations and to accept the alternative argument holding that Instruction No. 1767 is after all a guideline and computation can be made under the relevant provisions of the Act read with the guidelines themselves.
The ITAT after detailed discussions held that Instruction No.1767 is after all a guideline and computation can be made under the relevant provisions of the Act read with the guidelines themselves and further held that it would be fair and reasonable if profits
from Indian operations are worked out by applying a rate of 3%. With the agreement of the learned counsel for the parties, the ITAT has rightly held that a specific provision would override a general provision.
All the issues in appeals are concluded by finding of fact.
Thus, in our opinion, no substantial question of law arises to be answered in these appeals.
We find no illegality or infirmity in the order of the ITAT and we are in agreement with the orders passed by the ITAT. The impugned orders do not require any interference of this Court in appeal.
All the appeals are dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs.
(B.C. Kandpal, J.) (P.C. Verma, J.)
Dated: March 30, 2006 P.Singh
More judgments on Section 145
- Shobha Sudamrao Tagad, Ahmednagar vs ITO WD-1, AhmednagarITA 311/PUN/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2023-24
- ACIT, Circle-49(1), New Delhi vs Kuldeep Chhabra, New DelhiITA 6507/DEL/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- ACIT, Circle-49(1), New Delhi vs Kuldeep Chhabra, New DelhiITA 6506/DEL/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Mintu Lal, Ranchi vs Assessing Officer, RanchiITA 140/RAN/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- Ontic Finserve Limited, Ahmedabad vs ITO Ward -3(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 1924/AHD/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S.Ritika Ispat PVT. LTD.,Balanda, Sundergarh vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 4 Nov 2026
- Biswanath Pradhan vs. The Principal Commnr., CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 4 Nov 2026
- M/S.Ritika Ispat PVT. LTD.,Balanda, Sundergarh vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 4 Nov 2026
- M/S Shree Sai Jagannath, Rourkela, Sundargarh vs. Chief Commissioner, CGST, Central Excise And Customs, BhubaneswarOrissa · 4 Nov 2026
- M/S.Shree Construction, Khordha vs. The Principal Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 4 Nov 2026
