Lethargy Is Not an Exceptional Circumstance: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Striking Off of Defence for Delay in Filing Written Statement Vague Decree of Injunction Can’t Be Executed by Attaching Machines: Rajasthan High Court Strikes Down Execution Order Mere permission to join proceedings without allowing filing of written statement is illusory: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Proceedings Unregistered Power of Attorney Can’t Transfer Property: MP High Court Denies Title, Dismisses Ejectment Suit Mere Non-Recovery of Weapon Is Not Fatal When Circumstantial and Medical Evidence Prove Guilt Beyond Doubt: Allahabad High Court Failure to Examine Gazetted Officer and Magistrate Who Certified Seizure Goes to Root of Fair Trial Under NDPS Act : Calcutta High Court Tender Years Doctrine Is No Longer Good Law: Delhi High Court Slams Mother’s Custody Claim Built on Parental Alienation Negation of Bail is the Rule in NDPS Cases Involving Commercial Quantity: Himachal Pradesh High Court Denies Bail Single Stab Injury in Heat of Passion During Sudden Quarrel Is Not Murder: Kerala High Court Section 10 CPC Inapplicable To Labour Court Proceedings; Stay Of Individual Disputes Denied: Karnataka High Court 138 NI Act | Once Issuance and Signature on Cheque Are Admitted, Burden Shifts on Accused to Dislodge Statutory Presumption: Madras High Court Confession Cannot Substitute Proof: Bombay High Court Acquits Husband Convicted of Wife’s Murder "Sole Eyewitness Testimony, Corroborated by Medical and Recovery Evidence, Is Enough to Sustain Conviction Under Section 302 IPC: Allahabad High Court Partition Once Effected Cannot Be Reopened on Vague Allegations of Fraud: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Registered Family Partition Deed Cancellation of Land Acquisition Compensation Without Allegation or Hearing Is Arbitrary: Supreme Court Restores Compensation to Innocent Land Owner Whether Act Was in Discharge of Official Duty Is a Question of Fact — Magistrate, Not High Court, Must Decide: Supreme Court Restricts Writ Interference in BNSS Cases Section 175(4) BNSS | Affidavit Is Not Optional — Even Complaints Against Public Servants Must Follow Procedural Rigour: Supreme Court Magistrate Cannot Be Directed to Recall His Judicial Order by a Writ Court: Supreme Court Warns Against Article 226 Interference in Pending Criminal Proceedings Even In Absence of Written Demand, If Substantial Dispute Exists or Is Apprehended, Reference Under Section 10 ID Act Is Valid: Supreme Court Absence of Classical Signs of Strangulation and Possibility of Hanging Nullifies Homicidal Theory: Supreme Court Holds Medical Evidence Alone Cannot Prove Guilt Confession Must Be Direct Acknowledgment of Guilt, Not Mere Presence at Scene: Supreme Court Slams Misuse of Section 164 CrPC Reversal of Acquittal Without Dislodging Trial Court’s Reasoning Is Impermissible: Supreme Court Restores Acquittal

"Promotion of Economic Development Within Oman Achieved by Attracting Investments": Supreme Court Upholds Tax Exemptions for Indian Company's Dividends From Omani JV

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the Indian-based company regarding the taxability of dividends derived from its Permanent Establishment (PE) in Oman. The ruling largely revolves around the provisions in the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and Oman and relevant Omani Tax Laws.

Supreme Court observed, "By extending the facility of exemption, the Government of Oman intends to achieve its object of promoting development within Oman by attracting investments." This came as a significant point in the case where the Indian company had invested in a project by setting up a PE in Oman.

In an intricate examination of Articles 7, 11, and 25 of the DTAA, along with Omani Tax Laws, the Court clarified that the dividends received by an Indian company from its PE in Oman would be subject to similar tax treatment in India as it received in Oman, pursuant to Article 25 of the DTAA.

It was particularly noted, "Since the assessee has invested in the project by setting up a permanent establishment in Oman, as the JV is registered as a separate company under the Omani laws, it is aiding to promote economic development within Oman and achieve the object of Article 8 (bis)."

Supreme Court further dismissed the revenue's argument that the dividends were not designed as a tax incentive in Oman to promote development. "The term 'incentive' is neither defined in the Omani Tax Laws nor in the Income Tax Act, 1961," the Court stated, citing a clarification letter from the Omani Finance Ministry which stated that the introduction of Article 8 (bis) is "to promote economic development in Oman."

The judgement has provided clarity on the complex issues related to tax laws in cross-border investments and is expected to have far-reaching implications for similar tax matters involving India and Oman.

Legal experts believe this case will serve as a precedent for future tax-related cases involving Permanent Establishments and Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements.

Date of Decision:  15 September 2023

PRINCIPAL COMMISSION ER OF  INCOME TAX-10 vs M/S KRISHAK BHARTI COOPERATIVE LTD. 

Latest Legal News