Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in the case of Kotak
Mahindra Bank Ltd. ('the Assessee'), dealt with the issue
of whether fees paid by the Assessee to a UK LLP for legal services
in relation to acquisition of a banking company and setting up of a
US branch is covered by the source rule exclusion applicable to
royalty and fee for technical services ('FTS') under the
Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). Furthermore, ITAT also
dwelled upon the issue of whether payment for such services would
be governed by Article 15 of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement
between India and UK ('the Tax Treaty') dealing with
Independent Personnel Service ('IPS') or Article 13 dealing
with royalty and FTS.
The Tribunal held that the source rule exclusion under the Act
is not restricted to a case where FTS is incurred for the purpose
of earning overseas income only when there is an existing source of
income, but even if the payment is for creation of a new source of
income it is covered by the source rule exclusion. Since the
payments to UK LLP were made for earning a new source of income or
earning income from business outside India, by way of acquisition
of a banking company or setting up of a branch outside India, such
payments would be covered by the source rule exclusion under the
Further, it was held that Article 15 of the Tax Treaty, being a
specific provision dealing with legal services, overrides the
general provisions of Article 13 of the Tax Treaty dealing with
technical and consultancy services. However, in absence of
satisfaction of the conditions specified in Article 15 of the Tax
Treaty, such income is not liable to tax in India.
Tax landscape is evolving and ruling of this kind re-enforce
taxpayer's confidence that enigma of India's adversarial
tax regime is close to its end. This is a welcome ruling by the
ITAT which clarifies that any payment by a resident which is in the
nature of royalty or FTS for the purpose of earning a potential
future source of income outside India would also be covered by the
source rule exclusion under the Act.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
Recently, on December 21, 2016, the "CBDT" released a circular containing responses to questions raised by various stakeholders in the context of the applicability of the indirect transfer provisions...
"One Country, One Tax, One Market" were the excited claims of the architects of the Constitution (One Hundred and First) Amendment Act, 2016, passed by the Rajya Sabha on 3rd August 2016 and the Lok Sabha on 8th August 2016.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).