DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. IMERYS ASIA PACIFIC PVT. LTD., PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2335/PUN/2016Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 August 2018AY 2012-134 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee is covered by the India-Singapore Tax Treaty and is eligible for the concessional tax rate. The Tribunal also found the assessee eligible for benefits under Article 24 of the treaty, upholding the CIT(A)'s order.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order granting concessional tax rates to the assessee, a Singapore-based company, under the India-Singapore DTAA. The Assessing Officer had denied this benefit, citing lack of beneficial ownership and failure to satisfy the Limitation of Benefit clause.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee, a non-resident company, is eligible for concessional tax rates under the India-Singapore DTAA for royalty and interest income, and if it satisfies the Limitation of Benefit clause.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 115A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM & SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Agiwal

आदेश / ORDER

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM :

This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Pune dated 19-07-2016 for the assessment year 2012-13.

2.

The Revenue has assailed the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by raising following grounds :

2 ITA No. 2335/PUN/2016, A.Y. 2012-13

“1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts, in giving relief in tax rate ignoring the fact that the assessee is not beneficial owner of the royalty and interest income and hence not eligible for concessional rate of tax of 10%. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in holding that the assessee is entitled for concessional tax rate of 10% ignoring the fact that the assessee failed to furnish the documentary evidence to prove that it is the beneficial owner of the royalty and interest. 3. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend/alter or delete any ground other than the aforesaid ground herein if advised so.”

3.

Shri Rajendra Agiwal appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted at the outset that the assessee is a non-resident company incorporated in Singapore and is covered under India Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). The assessee company is providing administrative, marketing and sales services to the group and affiliate companies in the Asia pacific region. During the period relevant to assessment year under appeal, the assessee received income from Indian entities for the following transactions : Name of the Entity Nature of Amount (Rs.) Rate of tax applied transaction as per DTAA Imerys NewQuest Royalty 45,04,000 10% (India) Pvt. Ltd. (INPL) Imerys Ceramic Interest 26,32,225 15% (India) Pvt. Ltd. (ICPL) Imerys Minerals Interest 1,10,02,895 15% (India) Pvt. Ltd. (IMPL) Total 1,81,39,120

3.1 The Assessing Officer during the scrutiny assessment proceedings denied the benefit of lower tax rate applicable under India-Singapore Tax Treaty for the following reasons : i. The assessee is not the beneficial owner of the royalty received from INPL and interest received from ICPL and IMPL; and

3 ITA No. 2335/PUN/2016, A.Y. 2012-13

ii. The assessee does not satisfy Limitation of benefit clause as per Article 24 of the treaty.

Consequently, the Assessing Officer taxed the assessee’s income u/s. 115A @ 20%. The ld. AR submitted that for similar reasons, the Assessing Officer made additions in assessment years 2006-07 to 2010-11. The matter travelled up to the Tribunal. The Tribunal in assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 233/PN/2014 for assessment year 2010-11 decided on 15-04-2016 held that the assessee is covered by India-Singapore Tax Treaty and hence eligible for concessional rate of tax. The Tribunal further held that the assessee is also eligible for benefit under Article 24 of the treaty. The ld. AR pointed that similar view has been taken by the Tribunal in the case of assessee in assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10. The ld. AR furnished a copy of the order of Tribunal in ITA No. 233/PN/2014 (supra) and the copy of order of Tribunal in ITA No. 1434/PN/2015 for assessment year 2006- 07 decided on 22-07-2016 and ITA Nos. 1205 to 1207/PUN/2015 for assessment years 2007-08 to 2009-10 decided on 07-07-2017.

4.

Mrs. Shweta Mishra representing the Department fairly admitted that the issue raised by the Department in present appeal is identical to the one already adjudicated by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for earlier assessment years.

5.

Both sides heard. Orders of the authorities below perused. We find that the grounds raised by the Revenue assailing the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) are on the same issues that have been decided by the Tribunal in assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 233/PN/2014 for assessment year 2010-11 (supra). A perusal of the impugned order shows that relief has been granted to the assessee by the Commissioner of

4 ITA No. 2335/PUN/2016, A.Y. 2012-13

Income Tax (Appeals) by following the order of Tribunal in ITA No. 233/PN/2014 (supra). The order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is in line with the order of Tribunal in assessee’s own case in earlier assessment years. The ld. DR has not brought on record any material contrary to the findings of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in earlier assessment years. We do not find any infirmity in the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in allowing the benefit of concessional rate of tax @ 10% to the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed being bereft of any merit.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced on Wednesday, the 08th day of August, 2018.

Sd/- Sd/- (डी. करुणाकरा राव/D. Karunakara Rao) (ववकास अवस्थी / Vikas Awasthy) ऱेखा सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्याययक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER ऩुणे / Pune; ददनाांक / Dated : 08th August, 2018 RK आदेश की प्रयिलऱवऩ अग्रेवषि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अऩीऱाथी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 2. आयकर आयुक्त (अऩीऱ) / The CIT(A)-13, Pune 3. 4. The CIT (IT/TP), Pune ववभागीय प्रयतयनधध, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, “बी” बेंच, 5. ऩुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. गाडड फ़ाइऱ / Guard File. 6. //सत्यावऩत प्रयत // True Copy// आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER,

यनजी सधचव / Private Secretary, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, ऩुणे / ITAT, Pune

More judgments on Section 115A

All 417 judgments and leading authorities on Section 115A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →