Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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