|
January 10, 2007
Offshore
Supply Of Equipment and Services Not Taxable in India - Holds
Supreme Court, Overruling Advance Ruling
The
Supreme Court of India ("SC") has recently held,
in the case of Ishikawajma-Harima Heavy Industries Ltd ("Applicant")
that the income from offshore supply of equipment and
services by the Applicant outside India, would not be taxable in
India merely because the equipment
was supplied in relation to a turnkey project situated in
India.
In
the instant case the Applicant entered into a contract for the
setting up of a turnkey project, which contract involved a)
offshore supply of equipment and services and b) onshore supply of
equipment and services.
The Applicant filed
an appeal before the Supreme Court against a ruling by the
Authority for Advance Rulings ("AAR"), which held
that the income of the Applicant from
offshore supply of equipment and material was taxable in India. In
arriving at this conclusion, the AAR applied the twin tests of
-
whether the
‘offshore’ and ‘onshore’ elements of the contract are
so inextricably linked that the breach of the ‘offshore’
element would result in the breach of the whole contract and
-
whether
the dominant object of the contract is the execution of a
turnkey project and whether the title to the goods supplied
passes offshore or within India
The
AAR relied on the protocol in the India- Japan tax treaty, with
reference to paragraph (1) of Article 7, wherein both parties to
the treaty understood that by using the term "directly or
indirectly attributable to that permanent establishment",
profits arising from transactions in which the permanent
establishment ("PE")
has been involved shall be regarded attributable to the PE, to the
extent appropriate to the part played by the PE in those
transactions.
Reversing
the decision of the AAR, the SC drew a distinction between
business connection and permanent establishment (“PE”),
to hold inter alia that, as the offshore supply of
equipment was outside India, the fact that the contract was signed
in India was of no material consequence, since all activities in
connection with the offshore supply were outside India. The SC
reaffirmed that the concept of territorial nexus was fundamental
to determine taxability and the “location of the source of income within India would not render
sufficient nexus to tax the income from that source”. Thus,
with regard to rendering of offshore services, it was observed
that as the services were rendered outside India and income from
the same could not be said to be attributable to a PE in India, it
would not be taxable in India. The SC examined both section
9(1)(vii) and Article 12 of the India Japan DTAA (dealing with
Fees for technical Services) to hold that for taxability under
these provisions the services not only must be utilised within
India but also rendered in India or have a “live link”. The SC
further held that Section 9(1)(vii)(c) would only apply if the
income derived by the non-resident company were utilised in India.
The
SC also said that the above referred paragraph of the protocol was
not applicable because, for the profits to be “attributable
directly or indirectly”, the PE must be involved in the activity
giving rise to the profits.
Author’s
note:
This
is a very important ruling, laying down the law of the land with
respect to large EPC and infrastructure related contracts. The
clarity accorded by it would give the required certainty to the
foreign entities which are involved in large infrastructure
projects in India.
The
judgment of the SC may also lend clarity to taxability of income
earned by non-residents which though remotely linked to sources in
India, may be brought within the widely worded Section 9(1)(vii)(c)
of the Indian Income Tax Act. This is of particular interest to
the Fund Industry; where in the recent past offshore fund managers
have been receiving tax notices for the income earned from the
management of offshore funds making investments into India.
|
|
|
You can
direct your queries or comments to the authors
|
Source: Order arising Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.5318 of 2005
|