LINKLATERS SINGAPORE PTE. LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS LINKLATERS ALLEN & GLEDHILL PTE. LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 3(1)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1642/MUM/2015Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 August 2018AY 2011-124 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the income received by the assessee for rendering legal services is not taxable as fees for technical services under Article 12 of the India-Singapore DTAA. Consequently, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Linklaters Singapore Pte. Ltd., challenged an assessment order for AY 2011-12. The core issues involved the taxability of income from legal services as fees for technical services and the denial of benefits under the India-Singapore DTAA.

What were the issues?

Whether income from legal services constitutes fees for technical services, and whether the assessee is eligible for benefits under the India-Singapore DTAA.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 9(1)(vii),Section 143(3),Section 144C(13),Section 234B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “L” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & SHRI N.K PRADHANShri Niraj Sheth

For Appellant: Shri S.E. Dastur a/w, Shri Niraj Sheth
For Respondent: Shri Samuel Darse

Aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the assessment order dated 7th January 2015, passed under section 143(3) r/w 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) for the assessment year 2011–12 in pursuance to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP).

2 Linklaters Singapore Pte. Ltd.

2.

Grounds no.1, 2 and 8 are general in nature. Hence, do not require adjudication.

3.

Ground no.7, being premature at this stage, does not require adjudication.

4.

In grounds no.3 and 4, assessee has raised the issue of taxability of income derived from rendering of legal services as fees for technical services under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act as well as denial of benefit under India–Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).

5.

These two grounds are identical to grounds no.5 and 7 of ITA no. 1540/Mum./2016, in case of another group concern viz; Linklaters LLP, dispose off by us by a separate order of even date. At the time of hearing, the learned Counsels appearing for rival parties have agreed before us that the relevant provisions of India–Singapore DTAA governing the issue in dispute are pari materia to provisions under India–UK DTAA. While deciding identical nature of dispute in case of Linklaters LLP (supra), we have held that the income received by the assessee for the services rendered do not come within the purview of fees for technical services under Article–13 of the India–U.K. DTAA. Facts being identical. Following our decision therein, we hold that the income received by the assessee for rendering services is not taxable

3 Linklaters Singapore Pte. Ltd. as fees for technical services under Article–12 of India–Singapore DTAA. Accordingly, we delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer. In view of the above, ground no.4 is allowed and ground no.3 having become infructuous is dismissed.

6.

Ground no.5, relates to disallowance of reimbursement of expenditure.

7.

This ground is identical to ground no.10 of ITA no.1540/Mum./ 2016, in case of Linklaters LLP (supra). Following our decision therein, we delete the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. Ground raised is allowed.

8.

In ground no.6, assessee has challenged levy of interest under section 234B of the Act.

9.

This ground is identical to ground no.12 of ITA no.1540/Mum./ 2016 in case of Linklaters LLP (supra). Following our decision therein, we allow the ground raised.

10.

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 29.08.2018

More judgments on Section 9(1)(vii)

All 1,640 judgments and leading authorities on Section 9(1)(vii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →