Supreme Court Revisits Taxability of Income from Permanent Establishments in India

Must Read

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work,...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years...

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S....

Follow us

A Full Bench comprising of Justice R. F. Nariman, Justice Naveen Sinha and Justice B. R. Gavai heard the case of Director of Income Tax v. Samsung Heavy Industries.

Brief Facts of the Case

The Oil and Natural Gas Company (“ONGC”) had a contract with the Samsung Heavy industries (“Respondent”). The Respondent company, based in South Korea is subject to a Treaty, between both the countries to avoid double taxation of income. The contract was for a Project agreed earlier. The Respondent set up a project office in Mumbai. It was to only serve as a communication channel between the Respondent and ONGC. For an assessment year, the Respondent filed an Income Tax Return stating NIL profit.

The issue is about the Project Office opened at Mumbai by the Respondent Company. The question is, whether it can or cannot be said to be a “permanent establishment” within the meaning of Article 5 of the above stated Treaty?

The Income Tax Department questioned the same. The order of the Assessing Officer for Income Tax stated that the current project was a “single indivisible” Project. It attributed 25% of the revenues earned outside India, as being the income of the Respondent, subject to tax.

An appeal to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and High Court was made. The Revenue authorities made the present appeal. It was to determine if the Respondent’s office is a permanent establishment under the Treaty and if so, whether it will be taxable.

Appellant’s Arguments

Shri N. Venkataraman learned Additional Solicitor General appeared for the Appellants. He stated that the project was one and indivisible. The entire revenue earned would be taxable in India. 25% of the gross revenue of the Respondent was because of the business carried out by the Project Officer of the Respondent. The Project Office at Mumbai was not a mere liaison office but was connected with the core business of the Respondent.

Respondent’s Arguments

Shri S. Ganesh, learned counsel for the Respondent relied on Articles 5 and 7 of the Treaty. He argued that the Project Office in Mumbai consisted of only two employees, neither of whom had any technical qualifications. The accounts show that the Project Office had not incurred any expenditure on the execution of the project.

Furthermore, he argued that even assuming that there is a permanent establishment in India through which the core business activity of the Respondent carried out, no taxable income can be attributed to it. This is because the audited accounts show that the project resulted only in losses.

Court’s Observations

The Bench analysed judgments to consider “fixed place” permanent establishments. This is under double taxation avoidance treaties between various countries.

For the applicability of Article 5(1) of the Treaty and the ascertainment of a “permanent establishment”, the first condition is that it should be an establishment “through which the business of an enterprise” is wholly or partly carried on.

Further, the profits of the foreign enterprise are taxable only where the said enterprise carries on its core business through a permanent establishment. Maintenance of a fixed place of business is of a preparatory or auxiliary character in the trade or business of the enterprise. Hence, it would not be considered to be a permanent establishment under Article 5 of the Treaty. Also, it is only a limited account of profits of the enterprise that may be taxed in the other State because of the permanent establishment.

Court’s Decision

No permanent establishment has been set up within the meaning of Article 5(1) of the Treaty. The Mumbai Project Office is not a fixed place of business through which the core business of the Respondent was wholly or partly carried on. The office is an auxiliary office, meant to act as a liaison office between the Respondent and ONGC.

Hence, the Court dismissed the appeal in favour of the Respondents.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an order restraining the manufacturing, marketing,...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work, except the drinking water component...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years old (victim) at their home....

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S....

Bombay High Court Pursues Case Alleging Media Trial, Says NBSA Guidelines Must Be Toothed by Centre

Amid the pleas alleging media trials, the Division Bench had been hearing submissions of the News Broadcasters’ Authority (NBA). It prayed that severe restrictions...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as he was aggrieved by the...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence in diagnosing the septicemia and...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration, possession and a permanent prohibitory...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -