High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Acquits Accused, Questions “Capacity of Victim to Make Coherent Statement” with 100% Burn Injuries High Court of Himachal Pradesh Dismisses Bail Plea in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam: Rajdeep Singh Case Execution of Conveyance Ends Arbitration Clause; Appeal for Arbitration Rejected: Bombay High Court Allahabad High Court Denies Tax Refund for Hybrid Vehicle Purchased Before Electric Vehicle Exemption Policy Entering A Room with Someone Cannot, By Any Stretch Of Imagination, Be Considered Consent For Sexual Intercourse: Bombay High Court No Specific Format Needed for Dying Declaration, Focus on Mental State and Voluntariness: Calcutta High Court Delhi High Court Allows Direct Appeal Under DVAT Act Without Tribunal Reference for Pre-2005 Tax Periods NDPS | Mere Registration of Cases Does Not Override Presumption of Innocence: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Previous Antecedents and No Communal Tension: High Court Grants Bail in Caste-Based Abuse Case Detention of Petitioner Would Amount to Pre-Trial Punishment: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail in Dowry Harassment Case Loss of Confidence Must Be Objectively Proven to Deny Reinstatement: Kerala High Court Reinstates Workman After Flawed Domestic Enquiry Procedural lapses should not deny justice: Andhra High Court Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Case Canteen Subsidy Constitutes Part of Dearness Allowance Under EPF Act: Gujarat High Court Concurrent Findings Demonstrate Credibility – Jharkhand High Court Affirms Conviction in Cheating Case 125 Cr.P.C | Financial responsibility towards dependents cannot be shirked due to personal obligations: Punjab and Haryana High Court Mere Acceptance of Money Without Proof of Demand is Not Sufficient to Establish Corruption Charges Gujrat High Court Evidence Insufficient to Support Claims: Orissa High Court Affirms Appellate Court’s Reversal in Wrongful Confinement and Defamation Case Harmonious Interpretation of PWDV Act and Senior Citizens Act is Crucial: Kerala High Court in Domestic Violence Case

Delhi High Court Rules Guarantee Charges Taxable in India under Indo-UK DTAA

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


High Court affirms Tribunal’s decision, classifying guarantee charges received by Johnson Matthey PLC from its Indian subsidiaries as “other income” under Article 23 of the Indo-UK DTAA.

On May 28, 2024, the Delhi High Court upheld the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, determining that the guarantee charges received by Johnson Matthey Public Limited Company (PLC), a UK-based entity, from its Indian subsidiaries are taxable in India. The Court, in its judgment, emphasized the taxability of such income under Article 23 of the Indo-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA), categorizing the income as “other income” and not as “interest.”

The High Court concurred with the Tribunal’s interpretation that the guarantee charges do not qualify as ‘interest’ under Article 12 of the Indo-UK DTAA. The court stated, “The term ‘interest’ as defined in Article 12 of the DTAA pertains to income from debt-claims of every kind. However, the guarantee charges received by the appellant were not linked to any debt claim or borrowing from its Indian subsidiaries but were a remuneration for providing assurance to foreign financial institutions for loans extended to Indian subsidiaries.”

The High Court upheld that the guarantee charges had accrued in India, aligning with Section 5(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court observed, “The income arose in India as it was based on services utilized by the Indian subsidiaries. The right to receive the income emerged directly from the Intra Group Agreement, making the income characterized as having a regular periodic return derived from sources in India.”

The judgment reiterated the principles for evaluating the taxability of income under the Income Tax Act and DTAA provisions. The court extensively discussed the criteria for income accrual, emphasizing that income accrues when there is a right to receive it. “The guarantee charges were tied to the service of providing parent company guarantees and counter-indemnification facilities, utilized by the Indian subsidiaries for their commercial benefit,” the judgment noted.

Justice Yashwant Varma stated, “The guarantee charges received by the appellant are not in respect of any debt owed to it by its Indian subsidiaries but are tied to the credit facilities extended by the overseas branches of foreign banks. Thus, the charges do not fall within the ambit of ‘interest’ under Article 12 of the DTAA.”

Conclusion: The Delhi High Court’s decision underscores the importance of understanding the nature and source of income in international tax matters. By classifying the guarantee charges as “other income” under Article 23 of the Indo-UK DTAA, the court has clarified the tax obligations of foreign entities providing financial guarantees to their Indian subsidiaries. This ruling is expected to impact future cases involving the interpretation of similar income under international tax treaties, reinforcing the legal framework for determining the taxability of cross-border income.

Date of Decision: May 28, 2024

Johnson Matthey Public Limited Company vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation-2, New Delhi

 

Similar News