Bail Applicant Under Mandatory Obligation To Disclose Criminal Antecedents, Non-Disclosure Results In Erroneous Decisions: Andhra Pradesh High Court Judicial Decrees Cannot Be Set Aside By Administrative Orders After Decades; Long-Standing Revenue Entries Must Be Protected: Allahabad High Court 'Any Use Whatsoever' Includes Promotion & Events: Bombay High Court Restrains New Indian Express Group From Hosting Commercial Events Outside Southern States Reserved Category Candidates Who Qualify On Their Own Seniority Must Be Adjusted Against Unreserved Vacancies: Calcutta High Court Decree For Possession Can Be Passed If Landlord-Tenant Relationship & Termination Are Admitted; Unregistered Lease Is Month-To-Month: Delhi High Court Prosecution Against Co-Accused Not Sustainable When Main Accused Is Discharged On Same Facts: Jharkhand High Court Admission Of Handwriting On Account Statement Is Not Admission Of Its Contents; Corroborative Evidence Necessary To Prove Claim: Gujarat High Court Omission Of Label Defects In Food Inspector's Spot Memo Fatal To Prosecution For Misbranding: Himachal Pradesh High Court RBI Must Consult State Government, Not Just Registrar, To Supersede Co-operative Bank Board; Principles Of Natural Justice Excluded Under Section 36AAA: Kerala High Court Suit Filed Before IBC Proceedings Cannot Be Dismissed Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC; Section 96 Moratorium Only Stays Pending Actions: Calcutta High Court Senior Citizens Not Technologically Savvy Cannot Be Penalized For Not Checking Case Status On Court Website: Tripura High Court Telangana High Court Quashes Case Against CM Revanth Reddy Over 2019 Election Roadshow, Cites Bar Under Section 195 CrPC Maintenance Tribunal Orders Passed Without Mandated Three-Member Coram Are A Nullity: Punjab & Haryana High Court School Register Entry Regarding Date Of Birth Lacks Probative Value Unless Source Of Information Is Proved: Madhya Pradesh High Court Sets Aside POCSO Conviction Limitation Period For Specific Performance Starts From Date Of Refusal If No Fixed Date Stipulated In Agreement: Karnataka High Court Pensionary Benefits Not ‘Pecuniary Advantage’, Cannot Be Deducted From Income For Motor Accident Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Will | Disinheriting Caring Spouse In Favour Of Non-Relatives Is An ‘Unnatural Disposition’ Raising Grave Suspicion: Supreme Court Registration Does Not Automatically Validate Will If Process Is Shrouded In Suspicion; Testator's Illiteracy Increases Burden On Propounder: Supreme Court Propounder Faces Heavy Burden Of Proof When Testator Is Illiterate; Registration Does Not Cure Unexplained Suspicious Circumstances: Supreme Court

Payments to Non-Resident Entities Without PE in India Not Chargeable to Tax: High Court of Delhi

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment, the Delhi High Court has upheld that payments made to non-resident entities without a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India are not subject to tax in India. This was held in the case of ‘The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs Mitsubishi Corporation India P. Ltd.’, for the Assessment Year 2006-07, revolving around the interpretation of Section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

At the heart of the judgment is the interpretation of Section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, focusing on the disallowance for non-deduction of tax at source on payments made to non-resident entities. The critical issue was whether this disallowance contradicted the non-discrimination provisions in the India-Japan and India-USA DTAAs.

The appeal by the revenue authority contested the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal’s order which overturned the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) made by the Assessing Officer. The contention was on the payments to various non-resident group companies.

Justice Rajiv Shakdher, in his detailed assessment, highlighted the applicability and significance of the non-discrimination clauses in the DTAAs. He notably remarked, “The equal treatment or the non-discrimination Clause obtaining in Articles 24(3) and 26(3) of the India-Japan/India-USA DTAAs would apply concerning the payment for purchases made by the respondent/assessee.” This observation was crucial in determining the case’s outcome.

The Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision, affirming the deletion of the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i). Justice Shakdher concluded, “All three questions…have to be answered in favor of the assessee and against the revenue.” This effectively ruled that payments made to non-resident entities without a PE in India are not chargeable to tax in India.

Date of Decision: February 16, 2024.

‘The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs Mitsubishi Corporation India P. Ltd.’

Latest Legal News