RAMESH KUMAR ,CHENNAI vs. ITO INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , TUTICORIN

आदेश / O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal is filed by the assessee, aggrieved by the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(A)-16, Chennai dated 17.05.2017 pertaining to assessment year 2014-15.

ITA No.1979/Mds/2017 2

with Alcatel Lucent India Limited (All.). During the Financial Year (FY)

2013-14, the assessee was seconded to Switzerland to work with

Alcatel Lucent Schweiz Ag, Zurich (Alcatel Switzerland) with effect

from July 29, 2013. During FY 2013-14, the assessee was in India

for less than 182 days and qualified as a Non Resident as per

explanation (a) to section 6(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the assessee

had electronically filed his return of income on July 31, 2014,

admitting an income of Rs. 11,86,040 and claimed exemption of

salary under Article 15(1) of the Double Taxation Avoidance

ITA No.1979/Mds/2017 3

Agreement (tax treaty) between India and Switzerland amounting to

Rs 28,44,650. The particulars of income and taxes disclosed in tax

return by assessee are as given below.

` 11,86,040/- Income as per Tax Return Tax as per Tax Return ` 1,91,384/- TDS as per Tax Return ` 10,67,415/- Tax Refund claimed as per Tax Return ` 8,76,030/-

3.1 During the course of assessment proceedings, the case was

selected for limited scrutiny assessment through issue of notice under

section 143(2) of the Act and assessment order was passed on September 29, 2016 assessing income at `40,30,690/-. The tax

demand of `10,19,120/- was raised on account of addition of

`28,44,650/- made to the income in the assessment order. This

addition was made on account of disallowance of relief, amounting to `28, 44,650, claimed by the assessee under Article 15(1) of the tax

treaty. During the calendar years 2013 and 2014 relevant to Indian

FY 2013-14, the assessee was exercising his employment in

Switzerland and had filed his tax returns in Switzerland in the

ITA No.1979/Mds/2017 4

capacity of a tax resident of Switzerland and appropriate taxes have

been paid to the Revenue Authority of Switzerland. During the period

of secondment the payroll of the assessee was maintained with

Alcatel India. During the course of assessment proceedings, the

assessee was asked to submit his Switzerland tax returns and proof

of employment in Switzerland. The assessee had duly submitted his

Switzerland Tax Residency Certificate, for the years 2013 and 2014,

certifying that the assessee qualified as a resident of Switzerland. He

also duly submitted the copy of his Switzerland tax returns to the AO

for the year 2013 and 2014 to substantiate his employment in

Switzerland and the taxes have been paid on the salary income in

Switzerland which is claimed as exempt in India in accordance with

Article 15(1) of India- Switzerland tax treaty. However, the ld.

Assessing Officer after examining the submission of assessee,

considered that since the salary is received directly to an Indian bank

account, it will be subject to tax as per Indian Income tax laws. The

ld. Assessing Officer objected that assessee’s claim under Article

15(1) of the DTAA, which is not in order since as per Article 23 of the

treaty, only residents are allowed to claim relief under the treaty.

ITA No.1979/Mds/2017 5

Aggrieved by the order of ld. Assessing Officer, the assessee carried

the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). On appeal, Ld.CIT(A) following the

decision of Chennai Tribunal in the case of ITA No.299/Mds./2016

dated 05.08.2016, observed that the assessee has been paid salary

in India by an Indian Company, in Indian rupees and in asavings bank

maintained in India. Therefore, the the salary received in India is

taxable in accordance with the provisions of the section 5 and 9 and

192 of the Act as it is received in India and taxable in India. The

Ld.CIT(A) rejected the assessee’s claim of exemption of salary under

Article 15 of DTAA between India and Swiss Confederation. Against

the order of Ld.CIT(A), now the assessee is in appeal before us.

India in respect of employment exercised outside India for a non-

resident per the provisions of the Act and drew my attention to the

following points.

2.1 As per Section 6(1) of the Act, it is not disputed that the Appellant qualified to be a Non-Resident in India for the AY 2014-15.

2.2 The provisions of Section 5(2) of the Act defines scope of total income in case of non-residents as under:

ITA No.1979/Mds/2017 6

“Subject to the provisions of this Act, the total income of any previous year of a person who is a non-resident includes all income from whatever source derived which

(a) is received or is deemed to be received in India in such year by or on behalf of such person or

(b) accrues or arises or is deemed to accrue or arise to him in India during such year.”

2.3 The expression “subject to” used in the opening para of the sub-section (2) indicates that the provisions of Section 5(2) of the Act are subject to other provisions of the Act and would have an overriding effect.

2.4 If the charging provisions of the Act do not consider such receipts as taxable, it shall not be taxable under Section 5(2) of the Act.

2.5 As per Section 9(1)(ii) of the Act, income under the head Salaries shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India if it is earned in India. Further, as per Explanation to Section 9(1)(ii) of the Act, services rendered in India are regarded as income earned in India.

2.6 In CIT v Nippon [1998] 233 ITR 158, the Hon’ble Calcutta HC has held that provisions of Section 5(2) of the Act are subject to other provisions of the Act and if other provisions are contrary to provisions of Section 5(2) of the Act, they will have an overriding effect on Section 5(2) of the Act.

2.7 Reliance is also placed on the following decisions in this regard:

• Arvind Singh Chauhan v ITO [2014] 42 Taxmann.com 285( Agra) - an employee has to render the services to get a right to receive a salary and situs of accrual of salary income is the place where the services are rendered;

• Bombay High Court ruling in the case of Avtar Singh Wadhwan [2001] 247 ITR 260 - salary accrued outside India where the services were performed);

ITA No.1979/Mds/2017 7

• Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Estienne Andreas and Others (2000) 242 ITR 422 - in the context of India France DTAA, held that the remuneration received by the employees for the services rendered in France could not be subject to tax in India and Hon’ble Supreme Court has dismissed the special leave petition filed by the department against the above judgment as reported in (2000) 241 ITR (St) 124;

• Karnataka High court in Prahlad Vijendra Rao 2011 198 Taxman 551 - salary income derived by a person working outside India for 225 days has been held as not to have accrued in India;

• Bangalore ITAT in Bholanath Pal Vs. ITO (ITA No.l0/Bang/2011) - salary amount received by the appellant during stay outside India is not taxable as salary is accrued where employment services are rendered.

2.8 In the case of Authority for Advance Rulings in British Gas India Private Limited (2006) 155 Taxman 326 (AAR), the learned AAR while examining Article 16(1) of the Indo-UK DTAA, observed that since the non- resident individuals who are seconded to UK are drawing their salary in respect of employment being exercised in the UK, they shall be taxable in that country. Thus the salary paid by the applicant shall not be taxable in India as the same has been offered to tax in the UK in pursuance of the DTAA and the applicant is not liable to deduct tax at source on such salary payments.

2.9 Reference is also made to Circular 13 of 2017 holding that” salary accrued to a non-resident seafarer for services rendered outside India on a foreign going ship shall not be taxed in India merely because the amount has been credited to NRE account maintained with an Indian Bank by the sea-farer.

2.10 The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court has held in Utanka Roy v. Director of Income-tax (2017 82 Taxman.com 113) that ” Explanation 2 of Section 5(2) clarifies that income will not be treated to be received in India solely on the basis that such income was received or deemed to be received in / India. It has to be found out where the income to the person concerned had accrued. For the i

ITA No.1979/Mds/2017 8

purpose of finding out the place of accrual of income, the place where the services have been rendered become material.”

2.11 The Kolkata Tribunal decision in the case of Tapas Kumar Bandhophdyay v. DDIT [2016 159 lTD 309 has been wrongly applied to the facts of the present case by the learned AC and CIT(A) as in that case the assessee was not resident of any country while in the present case, the appellant is tax resident of Switzerland and has paid the applicable taxes in Switzerland (Pages 62-63 of the paper-book where the decision has been distinguished before the learned AO)

2.12 The decision cited by the Hon’ble bench during the course of the present hearing is also relevant in this context ie the jurisdictional Hon’ble Madras High Court has held in CIT v. Faizan Shoes (P) Ltd [2014 48 Taxman.com 48) that assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source when the nonresident agent provides services outside India on payment of commission.

2.13 It is pertinent to reiterate the fact that the appellant was exercising employment in SwitzerIaii and not in India. For administrative convenience, the appellant continued to receive is salary in India. The labour of service which entitled the appellant to the cash compensation was rendered outside India. The appellant reiterates before your Honours that only Iie payer is Alcatel India, but, services were rendered for Alcatel Switzerland in Switzerland. As the services are being rendered outside India, the salary income does not accrue in InJia and hence is not chargeable to tax in India (The relevant submissions in this regard re extracted at Pages 59-62 of the paper-book). {It is pertinent to note that the learned AO and Hon’ble CIT(A) have accepted the above facts and not disputed the same or called Ior additional evidence in this regard}.

2.14 The commentary from Klaus Vogel is also being relied upon in this regard. (Pages 60-61 of e paper-book.)

ITA No.1979/Mds/2017 9

3.1 As per provisions of Section 90(2) of the Act, the appellant is entitled to invoke the provisions of Indian tax laws or that of the DTAA, whichever is beneficial to him.

3.2 Article I of the DTAA provides that provisions of the DTAA shall apply to persons who are residents of one or both the countries. The Appellant qualifies to be a Non Resident of India for t e AY 2014-15 and a tax resident of Switzerland for the years 2013 and 2014 (i.e., corresponding Indian AY 2014-15) and is accordingly entitled to the beneficial provisions of the DTAA.

3.3 As per Article 15(1) of India-Switzerland DTAA, the remuneration derived by the Appellant as resident of a country (i.e. Switzerland) in respect of employment exercised in such other count (Switzerland) shall be taxable only in such other country (Switzerland) unless employment exercised in another country (i.e. India). The appellant would be taxable in India only if h exercised his employment in India( Pages 51-53 and Page 77-79 of the paper-book)

3.4 The Appellant has derived salary income of INR 28,44,650 for work days! services rendered i Switzerland and was a resident in Switzerland. Hence, the provisions of Article 15(1) of the India Switzerland DTAA are applicable to him.

3.5 Paragraph I of 2005 model OECD commentary provides the general rule relating to taxation f income from employment that such income is taxable in the State where the employment is actually exercised. Employment is exercised in the place where the employee is physically present when performing the activities for which the employment income is paid.

ITA No.1979/Mds/2017 10

3.6 A plain reading of Article 1 and Article 15 clearly envisages that the provisions of the DTAA ar applicable to a person who is a resident of at least one of the countries. The DTAA does not deprive the person from claiming benefits of the treaty if the person merely qualifies as a Ncn Resident of one of the countries.

3.9 The decision of Swaminathan Ravichandran v. ITO ( ITA 299/Mds/ 2016)

applied by the Learned AO and CIT(A) is distinguishable in the facts of the

Appellant’s case as under:

(a) In the case of Swaminathan, the services were utilised by the Indian company for generation of income in India whereas in the present case, the services are admittedly and indisputably rendered to Alcatel Switzerland in Switzerland and this fact has not been disputed or additional evidence sought by the authorities below (paper book pages 60-63, 13-15)

(b) In the case of Swaminathan, the concerned provisions pertain to India- China DTAA whereas the present case relates to India-Switzerland DTAA.

(c) The AO has, in the present case, relied on the language of Article 23(2)(a) of the India — Switzerland DTAA to deny the exemption under Article 15(1) India- Switzerland DTAA. The learned AO has wrongly interpreted Article 23(2)(a) India- Switzerland DTAA pertaining to a resident of Switzerland who ,may claim exemption in Switzerland of income that may be taxed in India. The same has no applicability where exemption is claimed in India, in respect of income only taxable in Switzerland, as per the language of Article 15(1) India- Switzerland DTAA.

ITA No.1979/Mds/2017 11

(d) The provisions of Article 23 of the India —Switzerland DTAA at the outset states that” Subject to any provisions of the law of India which may from time to time be in force and which relates to the relief of taxes paid in a country outside India ‘Thus, Article 23 pertains to grant of foreign tax credit on income of a resident also subject to tax in another country. Article 15(1) of the DTAA on the other hand specifically provides that salary derived by a resident of Switzerland is taxable only in Switzerland in respect of employment exercised in Switzerland.

(e) There is no specific nexus between Article 15(1) and Article 23 of the DTAA. (f) The exemption claimed under Article 15(1) of the DTAA has been allowed, in identical facts and circumstances, in the cases of Arjun Bhowmik (ITAT Delhi), Neeraj Badaya (ITAT Jaipur) J and Bholanath Pai (ITAT Bangalore), Sunil Chittaranjan Munsif (ITAT, Ahmedabad).

Ld.A.R pleaded that in view of the above points, the exemption claimed be granted.

claimed exemption in India in accordance with the provisions of

Article-15 of the DTAA between India and Swiss confederation. The

assessee’s claim under Article 15(1) of the DTAA is not in order since

as per Article 23 of DTAA, only Residents are allowed to claim relief

under the DTAA. In this case, the assessee is a resident of

Switzerland, and hence the assessee is not eligible to claim relief

ITA No.1979/Mds/2017 12

under 15(1) of the DTAA. The Article-23 of Double Taxation

elaborately is reproduced as under:-

[ARTICLE 23] ELIMINATION OF DOUBLE TAXATiON .1.(a) Subject to any provisions of the law of India, which may from time to time be in force and which relates to the relief of taxes paid in a country outside India, where a resident of India derives income which, in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement, may be taxed in Switzerland, India shall allow as a deduction from the tax on the income of that resident an amount equal to the income-tax paid in Switzerland whether directly or by deduction. Such deduction shall not, however, exceed that part of the income-tax (as computed before the deduction is given) which is attributable to the income which may be taxed in Switzerland. (b) Where a resident of Switzerland derives gains from the alienation of shares which may be taxed in India according to Article 13, paragraph 5, sub-paragraph (b), India shall allow as a deduction from tax on that income, an amount equal to the income tax paid in Switzerland on these capital gains. The deduction shall not, however, exceed that part of the Indian income-tax, which is imposed on these capital gains 2. (a) Where a resident of Switzerland derives income which, in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement may be taxed in India, Switzerland shall, subject to the provisions of subparagraphs ( b), (c) [***] exempt such income frOm tax but may, in calculating tax on the remaining income of that resident, apply the rate of tax which would have been applicable, if the exempted income had not been so exempted provided, however, that such exemption shall apply to gains referred to in paragraph of Article 13 only if actual taxation of such gains in India is demonstrated.

ITA No.1979/Mds/2017 13

(b) Where a resident of Switzerland derives dividends, interest, royalties or fees for [technical] services which, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 10, 11 and 12, may be taxed in India, Switzerland shall ailow, upon request, a relief to such resident. The relief may consist of,

(i) a credit from the Swiss tax on the income of that resident of an amount equal to the tax levied in India in accordance with the provisions of Articles 10, 11 and 12, such credit shall not, however, exceed that part of the Swiss tax, as computed before the credit is given, which is appropriate to the income which may be taxed in India; or

(ii) a lump sun reduction of the Swiss tax; or

(iii) a partial exemption of such dividends, interest, royalties or fees for technical services from Swiss tax, in any case consisting at least of the deduction cit the tax levied in India from the gross amount of the dividends, interest, royalties or fees for technical services.

Switzerland shall determine the applicable relief and regulate the procedure in accordance with the Swiss provisions relating to the carrying out of international Conventions of the Swiss Confederation for the avoidance of double taxation. (C) [****j 3. Article 21 renumbered as article 23, by Notification No. GSR 74(E), dated 7-2- 2001 4. ‘and (ci)” omitted, by Notification No. GSR 74(E), dated 7-2-2001. 1. Substituted for ‘included” by Notification No. GSR 74(E), dated 7-2-2001. 2. Sub-paragraph (c) omitted by Notification No. GSR 74(E), dated 7-2-2001.

ITA No.1979/Mds/2017 14

4.1 Further, ld.D.R submitted that Co-ordinate Bench of Chennai

Tribunal in ITA No.299/Mds/2016 dated 05 082016 in the case of Sri

Swaminatbari Ravidandran Vs ITO, Chennai has held that the salary

ITA No.1979/Mds/2017 15

received in India is taxable only in India. The above decision falls in

line with the contentions of the Department.

4.2 Further, it is also submitted that Kokatta Branch of ITAT in the

case of Tapas Kurnar Bandopadahay Vs DDIT doted 0106-2016

reported in in 70 Taxmann.corn 50 as held that the salary received by

a non resident in India is taxable in India as per the provisions of the

Income Tax Act. The Authority for Advance Ruling in (2007) 294 ITR

17/ AAR in the case of an employee of Infosys who was deputed to

Norway has ruled that the salary paid by the employer in India is

taxable in India though the assessee is a non resident in India during

the relevant financial year and he is not eligible to any relief in terms

of DTAA. Both the decisions also support the view of ld. Assessing

Officer. The assessee has been paid salary in India by an Indian

company, in Indian rupees and in a savings bank maintained in India,

Accordingly, the salary received in India is taxable in accordance with

the provisions of Section 5 and 9 and 192 of the Income-tax Act,

1961 as it is received in India and taxable in India. The assessee’s

claim of exemption of salary under Article 15 of the DTAA between

ITA No.1979/Mds/2017 16

India and Switzerland is not In accordance with law, hence not

entertained and disallowed.

record. In this case, the main argument of the ld.A.R is that the salary

was accrued outside India as such in view of the judgement of

Kolkatta High Court in the case of Utanka Roy Vs. I.T.O reported in

390 ITR 109 (Calcutta) wherein held that income received by the

assessee towards salary for an employment outside India to be

considered as income received out of India and not to be taxable in

India. Further, the assessee relied on the judgment of CIT Vs.Avtar

Singh Wadhwan in (2001) 247 ITR 260(Bom.) & Arvind Singh

Chauhan in (2014) 147 ITD 409. Accordingly, he submitted that salry

was accrued outside India and by arrangement, was remitted to India

and received in India that constitute receipt of salary is outside India.

5.1 On the other hand, the contention of ld.D.R is that salary for

services rendered outside India would be taxable in India, if it was

received in India as per Sec.5(2)(a) of the Act. As seen from the

ITA No.1979/Mds/2017 17

facts of the case of the assessee was continued to be in the pay-roll

of Indian company M/s.ALCATEL LUCENT India Ltd., New Delhi and

salary was paid and credited in Indian rupees to the assessee’s bank

account with HDFC bearing No.04931130003475 at Mugaperu,

Chennai. It is also noted that in accordance with the provisions of the

section 192 of the Act, the company was already deducted the tax at

source from the salary paid to the assessee. The terms and

conditions also show that the place of payment of salary to the

assessee is Indian Territory, which is originally assessee’s first home

country.

5.2 In my opinion, the salary is includible in the assessment under

section 5(2)(a) of the Act, which says that any income received by a

Non-Resident in India is taxable in India. There is a fair finding in the

order of the lower authorities that there is no dispute that the salary

was received in India. This should put end to the controversy,

therefore, it was rightly taxed in India u/s.5(2)(a) of the Act. Further,

in the present case, the salary income was received by the assessee

in India. It is necessary to examine whether the salary is deemed to

ITA No.1979/Mds/2017 18

accrue or arise in India by applying the Sec.9(1) of the Act and

Explanation thereto. In my opinion, the Explanation to 9(1)(ii) of the

Act says that where the salary is payable for services rendered in

India, the same shall be regarded as income earned in India.

5.3 The effect of Explanation is that it is no longer open to an

assessee to say that though he rendered services in India, since the

contract of employment was entered into outside India, the salary

could not be said to have accrued or arisen in India. In such a case,

the Explanation deems the salary as having accrued or arisen in

India, notwithstanding that the contract of employment was entered

into outside India. From the Explanation it is not permissible to infer

the corollary, viz. that in all cases where services are rendered

outside India, the salary cannot be deemed to accrue or arise in

India. The Explanation deals with a different situation and its scope

should not be extended to cases which are not contemplated by it.

The AO has rightly applied the first part of sec.5(2)(b). He held that

since the contract of employment had been entered into in India and

since all rights flowing there from were also enforceable in India, the

ITA No.1979/Mds/2017 19

salary must be held to have accrued or arisen to the assessee in

India. He had not, therefore, considered it necessary to address the

question as to whether the salary could be ‘deemed’ to accrue to the

assessee in India.

5.4 Sec. 9(1) provides for certain situations where the income may

be "deemed" to accrue or arise in India. The later part of s. 5(2)(b)

and s. 9(1) can be resorted to only when the income is not normally

to be considered as having accrued or arisen to the assessee in

India. These provisions can be resorted to only to find out whether

the law has provided for deeming the income in question as having

accrued or arisen in India. The deeming provisions cannot be looked

into when under general principles, the income has accrued or arisen

to the assessee in India. The salary received by the assessee has

accrued or arisen to the assessee in India, for the reasons given by

A.O with which I fully agree and it is, therefore, not necessary to

examine the question whether the salary is also deemed to accrue or

arise to the assessee by applying s. 9(1) and the Explanation thereto.

Therefore, the salary received by the assessee in India was taxable

ITA No.1979/Mds/2017 20

u/s.5(2)(a) on receipt basis and also as having accrued or arisen to

him in India u/s.5(20(b). Sec.9(1)(ii) read with Explanation thereto

was not relevant for the controversy.

5.5 Further, the assessee has taken one more plea that in view of

Article 15(1) of the DTAA with Switzerland, the said salary is not

taxable in India. I have gone through Article 15(1) of the DTAA. In

my humble opinion, Article-15 of DTAA with India and Switzerland,

exemption allowable to only resident Indian and not to the non-

resident. In the present case, there is no dispute that as the assessee

is a non-resident, the said Article is not applicable. This view is

fortified by the order of Tribunal in the case Shri Swaminathan

Ravichandran Vs. I.T.O in ITA No.299/Mds./2016 vide order dated

05.08.2016.

5.6 The decision in the case of Arvind Singh Chauhan followed the

decision in the case of A P Kalyankrishnan [1992] 195 ITR 534,

where income had suffered tax outside lndia and then was received

in India for the sake of convenience. In the present case, the income

ITA No.1979/Mds/2017 21

had neither suffered tax nor been received in any other jurisdiction. In

the case of Arvind Singh Chauhan (2014) 42 Taxman.com 285(Agra),

the Agra Tribunal took a view that the taxpayer had a lawful right to

receive a salary at the location of the foreign employer and the

transfer of money to India was only a matter of convenience.

However, as per Section 5(2)(a) of the Act, the relevant / criterion is

not the right to receive a salary, but the receipt of salary income

which is in India.

5.7 The decision in the case of Captain A L Fernandez (81 ITD

203)(Mum.) clearly lays down that salary for services rendered

aboard a ship outside the territorial waters of any country would be

taxable in India, if it was received in India as per Section 5(2)(a) of

the Act. This decision was not brought to notice to the Agra Tribunal

in the case of Arvind Singh Chauhan(supra). Following the decision

of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Captain A L Fernandez(81 ITD

203), the salary income received by the non-resident taxpayer in the

ITA No.1979/Mds/2017 22

present case were held as taxable in India by virtue of receipt in India as per Section 5(2)(a) of the Act.

Order pronounced on 16th November, 2017.

Sd/- (चं� पूजार�) (CHANDRA POOJARI) लेखा सद�य /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Chennai, Dated the 16th November, 2017. K s sundaram.

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 3. आयकर आयु�त (अपील)/CIT(A) 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध/DR 2. ��यथ�/Respondent 4. आयकर आयु�त/CIT 6. गाड� फाईल/GF