M/s. Joy Global (UK) Ltd. (Formerly as Joy Mining Machinery Ltd.) or JMML, Kolkata V. The ACIT (Int. Taxa.)-1, Ahmedabad

ITA 77/AHD/2022

AI Insights

The case involves M/s Joy Global (UK) Limited, a non-resident company, appealing against the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (International Taxation)-1, Ahmedabad, which taxed 60% of the income from the supply of maintenance spares as royalty connected to a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. The Tribunal examined whether the assessee had a PE in India and whether the income from the supply of maintenance spares was taxable in India under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). The Tribunal noted that similar issues had been decided in favor of the assessee in previous years, and no distinguishing facts were presented in the current case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 135603 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-05-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 19-04-2023
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 29-03-2022
• Other Referred Cases: Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries, Linde AG, Linde Engineering Division, Morgan Stanley and Co. Inc, Vodafone International Holdings B. V. v. Union of India, Ansaldo Energia SPA
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S.N SOPARKAR
• Keywords: Double taxation relief; Permanent establishment; TDS
• Section: 143(3); 234B; 133(6); 44DA; 13

Judgement Text

आयकर आयकरआयकर आयकर अपी अपीअपी अपीलीय लीयलीय लीय अिधकरण अिधकरणअिधकरण अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद अहमदाबादअहमदाबाद अहमदाबाद यायपीठ यायपीठ यायपीठ यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’ D’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI T.R SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 77/AHD/2022 िनधा रण िनधा रणिनधा रण िनधा रण वष वष वष वष /Asstt. Year: 2018-2019 M/s Joy Global (UK) Limited, (formerly known as Joy Mining Machinery Limited or ‘JMML’) C/o Joy Global (India) Private Limited, 85/1 Topsia Road (South), Kolkata-700046. PAN: AACCJ3893R Vs. A.C.I.T, (International Taxation)-1, Ahmedabad. (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri S.N Soparkar, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parin Shah, A.R Revenue by : Shri Alpesh Parmar, Sr.D.R सुनवाई क तारीख/Date of Hearing : 20/04/2023 घोषणा क तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 19/05/2023 आदेश आदेशआदेश आदेश/O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the Assessee against the order of Learned Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax(International Taxation), dated 04/02/2022, Ahmedabad with the direction of Learned DRP-(2), arising in the matter of assessment order passed under s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) ITA no.77/AHD/2022 A.Y. 2018-19 2 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as "the Act") relevant to the Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: The grounds mentioned herein are without prejudice to one another. 1. That the order passed by the Learned Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (International Taxation) - 1, Ahmedabad (here-in-after referred to as 'Learned AO' or Id. AO') under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act') and the directions of the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (here-in-after referred to as 'Learned DRP' or 'Ld. DRP') is contrary to the provisions of law and erroneous on the facts of the case and liable to be quashed. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO failed to appreciate that income from supply of maintenance spares from outside India cannot be taxed in India in the absence of any activity of the nonresident in India. 3. That the Ld. AO erred in treating the contract for supply of equipment, scientific site investigation and provision for services as composite contract. 4. a) That the Ld. AO erred in holding that the appellant has a Permanent Establishment ('PE') in India. b) Without prejudice to the above, and even assuming but not admitting that the appellant has a PE in India, the Ld. AO erred in not appreciating that nothing further can be attributed to such PE on account of Income from supply of maintenance spares in India. 5. That the Ld. AO erred in treating the consideration from sale of maintenance spares as royalty connected to PE in India and taxable under section 44DA of the Act read with Article 13 read with Article 7 of India-UK Treaty. 6. That the Ld. AO erred in arbitrarily treating 60% of consideration from supply of maintenance spares as business profit. 7. That the Ld. AO and Ld. DRP erred in not following the judgement of the Hon'ble Jurisdiction a 1 Ahmedabad Tribunal in appellant's own case for AY 2012-13, AY 2013-14, AY 2014-15 and AY 2015-16 wherein it was held that supply of maintenance spares by the appellant from outside India is not taxable in India. 8. That the Ld. AO erred in levying interest under section 234B of the Act. 9. That the Ld. AO erred in levying interest under section 234D of the Act, 10. That the appellant craves leave to add and/or to alter, amend, rescind, modify the grounds herein above or produce further documents before or at the time of hearing of this Appeal. 3. The only effective issue raised by the assessee is that the Ld.CIT(A), erred in holding that assessee has Permanent Establishment in India and therefore the income of the assessee to the tune of 60% for the consideration from supply of ITA no.77/AHD/2022 A.Y. 2018-19 3 maintenance spares as taxable in India u/s.44DA of the Act, r.w article 13 and article 7 of India-UK Treaty. 4. The facts in brief are that the assessee in the present case is a non-resident company based in United Kingdom (UK). The assessee company successfully bided against the global tender issued by South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL), an Indian company, for introduction of Continuous Mining Technology in its Sheetaldhara Mines. Subsequently, the assessee company had entered in a consolidated contract dated 15.10.2009 for all the issues related to introduction of continuous mining technology in these mines and its operation for five years. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee company has significant presence in the Sheetaldhara Mines on account of its activity of introduction of continuous mining technology. Therefore, the Assessing Officer held that assessee company had its Permanent Establishment in India. Thus, according to AO, the sum of Rs. 4,02,32,605/- being 60% of payments by the PE represents royalty payment which is liable to be taxed in relation to income from such activities. Accordingly, the AO vide draft order dated 06-04-2021 under section 143(3) of the Act held that payment made is in the nature of royalty connected to the PE of the assessee company and liable to be taxed in India under the provisions of section 44DA of the Act read with Article-13 of India-UK DTAA. 4.1 The assessee against such draft order filed objection before the learned DRP who also confirmed the same vide order dated 20.01.2022. Thus, the AO following the direction of learned DRP passed the final order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act dated 04-02-2013. 5. Being aggrieved by the assessment order the assessee is in appeal before us. ITA no.77/AHD/2022 A.Y. 2018-19 4 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the issue on hand is covered by order of this Tribunal in favour of the assessee in its own case for A.Y. 2012-13 to 2017-18. 7. On the other hand, the learned DR vehemently supported the order of the lower authorities. 8. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. It is pertinent to note that the issue related to the present A.Y. has already been decided by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Ys. 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014- 15, 2015-16, 2016-17 as well as 2017-18 in its favour. The Ld. DR could not bring any distinguishing facts in the present case. The Tribunal’s observation in appeal for the AY 2012-13 bearing ITA No. 655/Ahd/2017 reads as under:- 5. Facts of the case are that the appellant company is incorporated under the laws of United Kingdom (UK). The appellant company is a global leader in the manufacture, sale and servicing of underground mining equipment and parts. 6. The appellant company entered into the following contract with South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL)- (a) Contract for supply of equipment, initial spares, consumables and maintenance spares. (b) Contract for Scientific Site Investigation services. (c) Contract for provision of services. 7. The contract for Scientific Site Investigation services was subsequently assigned to Joy Mining Services India Pvt. Ltd. (JMSIPL) under the same terms and conditions as was agreed with the appellant company by SECL. Similarly, contract for provision of services was also completely assigned to JMS India under the same terms and conditions as was agreed with the appellant company by SECL. 8. Profits earned by JMS India from the two contracts assigned to it by the appellant company were offered for taxation and have been taxed accordingly. To this extent, there is no dispute. 9. The bone of contention between the appellant company and the revenue relates to the profit earned from contract for supply of equipment, initial spares, consumables and maintenance spares by the appellant company. 10. The appellant company claims that the income from supply of maintenance spares have been earned from outside India where the risk and title to the goods have been transferred and, therefore, no activity has been performed by the appellant company in India for transfer of spares from outside India. The appellant company further contends that since it does not have any other income and the only income earned by it was with respect to supply of maintenance spares, there was no income which could be taxed in India. It is further stated that as far as income from services performed in India was concerned, same has been rendered by JMS India and the income on account of such ITA no.77/AHD/2022 A.Y. 2018-19 5 services has been offered to tax in India by JMSIPL. This fact has also been verified by the A.O. by issue of notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act. 11. The appellant company further contends that the revenue authorities have grossly erred in treating the contract for supply of equipments, Scientific Site Investigation and Provision of services as composite contract. It is the say of the Id. Senior Counsel that SECL has specifically entered into separate contract for supply of equipment and services and separate prices have been agreed for each component. 12. We find force in this contention of the Id. Senior Counsel as by letter dated 02.09.2008 issued by SECL, the intention is clear to treat each contract as a separate contract. The said letter is exhibited at page 322 of the paper book. Further exhibits at pages 323 to 325 of the paper book contain Price Bid format where separate price quotes have been sought for Scientific Site Investigation, Equipment, initial spares, maintenance spares, service cost, etc. and by exhibits 326 to 328 of the paper SECL confirmed the price for each activity separately. 13. A perusal of Para 33.3 of the contract which is at page 67 o the paper book it has been specifically provided that "In case DGMS does not give approval as specified above under sub-clauses 33.1 and 33.2, this contract will not enter into force and this contract will not be effective without any obligation on the part of any party. However, the contract on Scientific Site Studies and Investigation shall come into force on signing of the contract". 14. This clause clearly proves that the contracts are separate and, therefore, there is no question of treating the contract as composite, when the parties have suo motu agreed to treat them as separate. 15. Another ground on which the income has been taxed in the hands of the appellant company is that the A.O. and the DRP held that the appellant company has a Permanent Establishment in India. The main reason for this given by the revenue authorities read as under; - "JMML has taken complete responsibilities of execution of the project right from site investigation, supply, erection and installation, semics and maintenance and training. Each assignment contract signed subsequently refers to the terms of tender issued by SECL and submission of bid by JMML. Even the scope of work to be performed by the JMML in supply contract dated 15/10/2009 includes responsibility for overall project implementation including various services. The JMML has taken the responsibilities of approval of mining equipment as well as mining method from DGMS (Director General of Mines Safety). As per Annexure-VI of supply, time schedule of the whole project, starting from signing of contract till commencement of first Annual Production period is given in a chart form. It is clear from this that site investigation contract (SIC) came into force weeks before supply contract. By virtue of signing site investigation contract, JMML (or its representatives) had all the access to the mining site. JMML had the mining site at its disposal and for the purpose of designing the mining method and equipment and for taking approval of DGMS so that equipment suitable to site may be manufactured, it has its place of management at the site. It is very important to note that access of JMML was not limited or restricted in any respect to the mining site. This constituted a fixed place permanent establishment for the JMML. RMT, which carried out site investigation activity on behalf of JMML acted as its agent to that extent along with M/s Joy Mining Services India Pvt Ltd (JMSIPL). Thus, JMML had fixed place PE in India through RMT and JMSIPL with the entire mining site at its disposal." ITA no.77/AHD/2022 A.Y. 2018-19 6 16. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench at Chennai in the case ofAnsaldo Energia SPA 310 ITR 237. 17. It is the say of the Id. D.R. that the appellant company had fixed place of business in India with the entire Mining Site at its disposal through its AE which fulfills the mandate of Article 5 of India-UK DTAA as well as business connection u/s.9(l)(i)oftheAct. 18. There is no dispute that the appellant company is a tax resident of UK and eligible to be governed by provisions of India-UK Treaty. In terms of Article 5 of India-UK Treaty, for enterprise to constitute fixed place permanent establishment, there must be a fixed place of business at the disposal of the enterprise through which the business of the enterprise is carried on. We find that the appellant company did not have any place of business/office/branch through which its business was carried on in India. The only income earned by the appellant company during the year under consideration was from supply of maintenance spares from outside India and the risk title of such goods have passed to SECL from outside India. This is clear from Para 16 of the contract at page 58 of the paper book which read as under:- Passing of Risk and Title "Risk and title to the Goods and Maintenance Spares to be supplied the Contract shall pas's to SECL upon delivery effected FOB at the foreign port of shipment." 19. And Para 17 Price and Payment Terms have been provided and it has been provided that the price for Maintenance Spares determined by SECL was calculated based on production achieved during annual production cycle. 20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries 288 ITR 408 had the occasion to consider the applicability of Section 9 of the Act read with Article 7 & 12 of the DTAA between Indian and Japan wherein the appellant was a company incorporated in Japan and included, interalia, in business of construction of storage tanks, engineering, etc. - it entered into an agreement with Petronet LNG Limitedfor setting up a Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) receiving storage and degasification facility in India - the appellant was to develop, design, engineer and procure equipment, materials and supplies, to erect and construct some storage tanks. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that since the contract involved offshore supply and offshore services and since all activities in connection with offshore supply were carried out outside India, amounts receive/receivable by the appellant for offshore supply of equipments, materials, etc, cannot be deemed to accrue or arise in India. A similar view was decided in favour of the assessee by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Linde AG, Linde Engineering Division 365 ITR 1 wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that where equipment and material was manufactured and procured outside India, income attributable to supply thereof could only be brought to tax if it was found that said income therefrom arose through a business connection in India. The Hon'ble High Court had to consider whether appellant's income is taxable under the Act and DTAA and the Hon'ble Court held, interalia, as under:- As far as obligations of 'I' and 'S' are concerned, the Contract is an indivisible one. However, for the purp of tax, the Contract does specify the amounts that are payable with respect to the various activities carried on 'L'/'S'. Income may accrue or arise at various stages and on account of varied activities. In case of a resident tax entity any income which accrues or arises from an activity outside India, would not be tax unless the same falls within the deeming provision contained in section 9(1). In these circumstances, it was not be apposite to consider the contract as a composite one for the purposes of imposition of tax under the [Para 82]. The Authority referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vodafone International Hold B.V. v. Union of India [2012] 341 ITR 1/204 Taxman 408/17 taxmann.com 202 in support of its view that in law the liability for ITA no.77/AHD/2022 A.Y. 2018-19 7 performance of the Contract by 'L' and 'S' was joint and severable, the contract must read as an indivisible one for the purposes of tax. [Para 83]. The approach as well as the conclusion of the Authority is flawed. The Authority erred in proceeding or basis that the contract as a whole was the subject of taxation. The subject matter of taxation was not contract between the parties but the income that the petitioner derived from the Contract. Thus, the situs of object of the Contract would not be as relevant as determining the situs where the income of 'L' had accrue arisen. By virtue of section 4, income tax is charged in respect of the total income of a person. By virtue of Section 5, the scope of total income of a non-resident is limited to income which is received or deemed to be received in India and income which accrues or is deemed to accrue or arise in India. It, therefore, follows the object of inquiry would have to be to determine whether any/income of 'L' accrued or arose in India whether any income could be deemed to accrue or arise in India. The fact that the contractual obligations were not limited to merely supplying equipment, but were for due performance of the entire Contract, was not necessarily imply that the entire income which was relatable to the Contract could be deemed to accrue arise in India. [Para 84]. " 21. The next question which was considered by the Hon'ble High Court related to the taxability of income received/receivable by Linde – (a) Design and engineering prepared solely for manufacture and/or procurement of equipment outside India (b) Supply of equipment material and spares outside India. 22. The Hon'ble Court observed as under:- 83. The Authority concluded that although, payments for each item or work were specified or that the amounts payable for the work to be performed by individual members of the Consortium was recognized under the Contract, the same would not alter the nature of the Contract in any manner. The Authority concluded that the Contract would have to be considered as one indivisible contract and the income from the same would be taxable in India as the object of Contract was to set up a facility in India. The Authority further held that the MOU entered into between Linde and Samsung could not be understood to be overwriting the Contract or the object of the Contract. With respect to the Internal Consortium Agreement the Authority held that the same was at best only an internal arrangement between Linde and Samsung and could not be referred to for determining the nature of the Contract. The Authority was of the view that the Contract being a composite contract, a 'dissecting approach' was not permissible. Having found that the contract was an indivisible one, the Authority concluded that it was not open for Linde to plead that the sale of equipment and machinery and designing of the project and equipment should be treated as an offshore transaction. The Authority referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vodafone International Holdings B. V. (supra) in support of its view that since in law the liability for performance of for the purposes of tax. 84. In our view, the approach as well as the conclusion of the Authority is flawed. First of all, the Authority erred in proceeding on the basis that the contract as a whole was the subject of taxation. The subject matter of taxation was not the Contract between the parties but the income that the petitioner derived from the Contract. Thus, the situs of the object of the Contract would not be as relevant as determining the situs where the income of Linde had accrued or arisen. By virtue of Section 4 of the Act, income tax is charged in respect of the total income of a person. By virtue of Section 5 of the Act, the scope of total income of a nonresident is limited to income which is received or deemed to be received in India and income which accrues or is deemed to accrue or arise in India. It, therefore, follows that the object of inquiry would have to be to determine ITA no.77/AHD/2022 A.Y. 2018-19 8 whether any income of Linde accrued or arose in India or whether any income could be deemed to accrue or arise in India. The fact that the contractual obligations of Linde were not limited to merely supplying equipment, but were for due performance of the entire Contract, would not necessarily imply that the entire income which was relatable to the Contract could be deemed to accrue or arise in India. 85. The principle of apportionment of income on the basis of territorial nexus is now well accepted Explanation l(a) to section 9(l)(i) of the Act also specifies that only that part of income which is attributable to operations in India would be deemed to accrue or arise in India. It necessarily follows that in cases where a contract entails only a part of the operations to be carried on in India, the assesses would not be liable for the part of income that arises from operations conducted outside India. In such a case, the income from the venture would have to be appropriately apportioned. The Supreme Court in the case of Ishikawajma- Harima Heavy Industries Ltd. (supra) had considered this aspect and held that merely because a project is a turnkey project would not necessarily imply that for the purposes of taxability, the entire contract be considered as an integrated one. The taxable income in execution of a contract may arise at several stages and the same would have to be considered on the anvil of territorial nexus. The decision in the case of Ishikawajma-Harima Heavy Industries Ltd. (supra) is clearly applicable to the facts of the present case as in that case also the contract in question was for a turnkey project where the object was to setup a Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) receiving, storage and degasification facility. Indisputably, insofar as obligations of parties are concerned, this contract was also an indivisible contract. The Supreme Court held that for the purposes of determining the taxability, it was necessary to enquire as to where the income sought to be taxed had accrued or arisen. The impugned ruling is thus clearly contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in Ishikawajma-Harima Heavy Industries Ltd's. case (supra). 23. Heavy reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Ansaldo Energia SPA 310 ITR 327. In our view the said case is clearly distinguishable on facts. In the case of Ansaldo (supra), it was held by the Madras High Court that the Indian subsidiary of Ansaldo was a legal facade which was created for taxation purposes and was not actually engaged in executing onshore contracts. In the instant case, right from the inception and as part of the documents, separate contracts have been entered into by SECL with separate contract prices. Moreover, one has to keep in mind the most important factor and that is the contract is with SECL, a Government of India undertaking. Therefore, by any stretch of imagination, it cannot be considered as a sham transaction. 24. The AO/DRP has also held that the consideration from sale of maintenance spares is royalty connected to PE in India and taxable u/s. 44DA of the Act read with Article 13 & 7 of India -UK Treaty and further considering 60% of consideration from supply of maintenance spares as the income of the assessee to be taxed in India. 25. As mentioned elsewhere, the contract has been entered into between and independent Government organization and the appellant company where the price for the product has been determined by the Government organization and at Para 11.4 of the invites of global Bids which is at page 332 of the paper book, it has been mentioned that the Bidder should quote the price for maintenance spares on the basis of cost per ton. In our understanding of the facts, the consideration is based on rate per ton is only a mode of recovering the price of product but it should not dilute the essential character of the contract. For this proposition, we draw support from the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. J. Chemicals Ltd. 210 ITR 830 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the ITA no.77/AHD/2022 A.Y. 2018-19 9 ratio that the nature of transaction cannot be determined by the method in which consideration is computed. 26. Assuming, Yet not accepting the activities relating to SSI creates a PE of the appellant company in India, income of PE to be taxed in India in terms of Article 7 of India-UK Treaty would be limited to extent of activity attributable to such PE. With reference to SSI Service, JMS India has been remunerated at the market value by an independent third party, a Government of India undertaking i.e. SECL. Further, the entire income from SSI Service earned by JMS India has been offered to tax in India. Thus, there is nothing further which can be attributed to tax in India. For this proposition, we derive support from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of DIT (International Taxation) vs. Morgan Stanley and Co. Inc 292 ITR 416. 27. Considering the facts in totality in the light of the judicial decisions discussed hereinabove and considering the facts in issue from all possible angles, we do not find any merit in the findings of the AO/DRP. We, therefore, set aside the findings and direct the A.O. to delete the impugned additions. The other issue relates to the levy of interest and denial of credit of TDS. Levy of interest is mandatory. We, therefore, direct the A.O. to charge interest as per the provisions of the law and so far as the denial of the credit of TDS is concerned, the A.O. is directed to decide the issue while giving effect to our findings. 8.1 Thus, respectfully following the above decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for earlier assessment years and in the absence of any stay granted from the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat, we hereby direct the AO to delete the addition made by him. Hence the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the Court on 19/05/2023 at Ahmedabad. Sd/- Sd/- (T.R SENTHIL KUMAR) (WASEEM AHMED) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (True Copy) Ahmedabad; Dated 19/05/2023 Manish