Delhi ITAT rules that there
is no PE of assessee (a UAE co. engaged in providing solutions for subsea
off-shore construction industry) on account of the grouting activities carried
out in India during AY 2007-08; Accepts assessee’s stand that the grouting activities
fall within the construction activity as contemplated in specific provision of
Article 5(2)(h), and since the number of days spent in India was less than the
stipulated period of 9 months, there was no PE trigger for the assessee in
India; Revenue had argued that Article 5(1) squarely applies to the assessee,
further Revenue had argued that the assessee has equipment PE in India, lastly
it was also contended that even movables place of business may constitute a PE
despite they are temporary in location; Firstly, ITAT applies the maxim,
“generalia specialibus non deroganf' i.e, a general provision would not be
applicable when specific provision is there, next ITAT clarifies that merely
because grouting is not a simple masonry work and involves complex aspects, it
does not take it out of the construction activities as mentioned in Article
5(2)(h), “…and any further classification [as done by the Revenue] would amount
to rewriting DTAA.”; Lastly, rejects Revenue’s stand that since the assessee
indulged in on-going projects, 9 months stipulation cannot be applied, states
that PE determination has to be made for each AY and with reference to DTAA
provision.:ITAT
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Bombay High Court Clarifies Tax Exemption Eligibility for Venture Capital Funds
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has reaffirmed that a Venture Capital Fund (VCF) registered with SEBI is entitled to claim ...
-
Slump sale is transfer of one or more business undertakings for a lump sum consideration, without assigning individual values to the each...
-
A new website launched for TDS related matters www.tdscpc.gov.in TRACES – T DS R econciliation A nalysis and C orrection E nabling S yste...
-
Facts Centrica India Offshore Private Limited (CIO), an Indian Company, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Centrica Plc, UK Centrica Plc a...
-
The Tax Audit season has started and it’s the time when the Assessees rush to their Chartered Accountants (CA) to get their Tax Audit d...
-
SREI Infrastructure Finance Ltd vs. ITSC (Delhi High Court) The assessee entered into a scheme of arrangement u/s 391-394 of the Compani...
-
Facts The taxpayer, a partnership firm, derived income from the business of handling and transport of ship containers, customs clearing a...
-
M/s. Alpha Projects Society P. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) In AY 2005-06, the assessee made payments to contractors & for professi...
-
01. TDS u/s 194J is required to be done for Royalty also w.e.f 13-7-2006. 02. Royalty had been defined under explanation 2 of se...
-
F.No.354/66/2011-TRU Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Central Board of Excise & Customs...
-
M/s. Merilyn Shipping & Transports vs. ACIT (ITAT Visakhapatnam Special Bench) The assessee incurred brokerage expenses of Rs.38....
No comments:
Post a Comment