Recovery Of Excess Payment Made By Mistake Is Permissible When Employee Furnished An Undertaking To Refund: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Application Under Sec 482 BNSS Is Maintainable Even If No Formal Order Of Arrest Is Passed By CGST Authorities: Allahabad High Court Consensual Physical Relationship Following Three-Year Courtship Does Not Amount To Rape If Marriage Promise Fails: Supreme Court Criminalization Of Civil Disputes | Courts Must Not Engage In Speculative Reasoning While Dealing With Quashing Petitions Under Section 482 CrPC: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money In The Absence Of Proof Of Demand Is Insufficient To Sustain Conviction Under Section 7 And 13 PC Act: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Quash NDPS Proceedings Merely Relying On Jurisprudence Regarding Evidentiary Value Of Confessional Statements: Supreme Court Extra-Judicial Confession Made While In Police Custody Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Supreme Court Taxing Authorities Must Levy Tax Based On The Form Of Goods At The Time Of Sale, Not On Potential End Use: Supreme Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders CBI Probe Into State Corruption Scams After Punjab Police Fails To Act On ED’s Section 66(2) PMLA Referral Section 482 CrPC | FIR Based On Consensual Relationship Gone Sour Cannot Be Sustained To Coerce Marriage: Supreme Court CISF Personnel Soliciting Bribes For Employment Is Guilty Of 'Gross Misconduct' Under Section 18 CISF Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court PIL | State Cannot Use Demolition Powers To Silence Whistleblowers Or Deflect Accountability: Punjab & Haryana High Court Criminal Proceedings Against In-Laws Without Specific Allegations Of Overt Acts Constitute Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 9 CPC | Admission In An Abated Suit Does Not Constitute Estoppel Against Landlord In A Fresh Eviction Proceeding: Calcutta High Court Arbitral Award Cannot Be Set Aside For Non-Adjudication Of Claims Specifically Abandoned By Parties: Delhi High Court Mere Long Possession Is Not Adverse Possession; Defendant Must Prove Hostile Animus To Deny Title Of True Owner: Himachal Pradesh High Court Reopening Of Assessment Under Sec 148A(d) Income Tax Act Cannot Be Based On 'Change Of Opinion' Without Fresh Tangible Material: Gujarat High Court Municipal Authorities Must Initiate Formal Proceedings And Grant Opportunity Of Hearing Before Sealing Premises:  Jharkhand High Court Court Cannot Compel Third-Party To Undergo DNA Test Unless Necessary For Just Adjudication: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Cannot Defer Bail Application Merely Because A Transfer Petition Is Pending In High Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 108 BNS | Mere Taunts Or Harassment Regarding Not Bearing A Male Child Do Not Constitute Abetment To Suicide: Rajasthan High 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