Salary paid by Infosys to non-resident employee taxable in India: AAR

Exchange Rate for imported goods is Rs 74.03 Per Pound Sterling and Rs 51.22 Per Yen-Exchange Rate for export is Rs 72.45 Per Pound Sterling and Rs 49.94 Per Yen-Customs Non-Tariff Notification No.128 Sensex slips further and closes at 8773 100 per cent EOUs allowed to export non-basmati rice-DGFT Notification No.59 Customs duty of 5 per cent imposed on import of Pig Iron, spiegeleisen, semi-finished products, flat products & long products Import of Crude Soyabean Oil subjected to 20 per cent customs duty- no change in import duty on refined soyabean oil-Customs Tariff Notification No.122 Time-limit for filing refund of service tax extended to 6 months-Service Tax Notification No.32 Rahul Bajaj asks Industry to prepare for the worst Tariff Value for import of Brass Scrap is 3525 and for poppy seeds 5206-Customs Non-Tariff Notification No. 127 CBEC clarifies the entire amount of duty paid by the manufacturer, as shown in the invoice would be available as credit irrespective of the fact that subsequent to clearance of the goods, the price is reduced by way of discount or otherwise-Central Excise Circular No.877 Mandavariya (Kishangarh), District Ajmer notified for Unloading of imported goods and loading of export goods-Customs Non-Tariff Notification No.117 SC Ruling-the entitlement of benefit in terms of Section 32AB, Section 80HH and Section 80I of the Income Tax Act- conversion of Jumbo rolls of photographic films into small flats and rolls in the desired sizes amounted to manufacture/production-AIT-2008-413-SC SC Ruling-Whether any "gift" arose in terms of Section 2(xii) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 on the allotment of rights issue by the appellant company to its shareholders vide Board's Resolution- Whether there was any element of "gift" as defined under Section 2(xii) in the appellant issuing Bonus shares in the ratio of 1:23-AIT-2008-412-SC DEPB benefit allowed on export of cement and steel-DGFT PN 108 exports of cement in all types and forms and primary steel products eligible for export incentives under Focus Market Scheme-DGFT Notification No.58 Import of Marble Tiles-DGFT Notification No.57 Clarification on setting up Duty Free Shops approved by FIPB-Customs Circular No.19 HC Ruling-Income Tax-"reserves" arising out of the acquisition of the business of Tata Cellular Limited could never have the character of "income" in the hands of the petitioners-pre-requisite condition contained in proviso to section 147 to enable the re-assessment to be opened after period of 4 years have elapsed have not been met-AIT-2008-410-HC HC Ruling-Central Excise- valuation of the goods for the purpose of excise duty and whether excise duty was chargeable under Section 4 or Section 4A of the Central Excise Act 1944-while construing rule 3, who are excluded are only the institutional or industrial consumers as explained in Rule 2A and the industrial or institutional consumers in terms of the proviso to rule 2(p) for the purpose of chapter-II are the same-If the person who purchase the prepacked commodity not directly from the manufacturer or packers, they are consumers and the declaration will be of no effect-AIT-2008-408-HC Government considering imposition of import duty on steel Bad News for Consulting Engineers- whether turnkey contract can be vivisected?- The conclusion in Daelim case on the point, prima facie, being not in accordance with law, matter goes to Larger Bench-AIT-2008-405-CESTAT Larger Bench of CESTAT rules Credit is admissible on an input service relating to the business-AIT-2008-407-CESTAT credit of the service tax paid on the outdoor catering (canteen) service is admissible as input service under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004-AIT-2008-406-CESTAT The payment for use of "services for MTNL/other companies via the interconnect/port/access/toll by the assessee would not fall within the purview of payments as provided for under section 194J of the Act, so as to be eligible for tax deduction at source-The interconnect charges/port access charges cannot be regarded as fees for technical services-AIT-2008-404-HC Computation of Value under Section 14 for Levy of Export Duty - Customs Circular No. 18 Advance Ruling- Whether the service fee paid by the applicant to Intertek Testing Management Limited UK under Global Management Service Agreement is taxable as "Royalties & Fee for Technical Services" as per the provisions of Article 13 of DTAA between India & UK? Whether the applicant is required to deduct tax at source on the service fee paid to Intertek Testing Management Limited, UK, at the rate of 10% plus applicable surcharge and cess as per the provisions of section 115A(1)(b)(BB) of the Income-tax Act-AIT-2008-401-AAR Larger Bench of SC Ruling-whether the revenue can be precluded from filing an appeal even though in respect of some other years involving identical dispute no appeal is filed -AIT-2008-403-SC SC Ruling-whether transfer of Banking Undertaking gave rise to taxable capital gains under Section 45 of the 1961 Act-it was not possible to compute capital gains and, therefore, the said amount of Rs. 10.20 cr. was not taxable under Section 45 of Income Tax Act-AIT-2008-400-SC Export duty of 8 per cent notified in place of earlier rate of Rs. 200 per tonne on export of iron ore fines-Customs Tariff Notification No.121 Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination And Collection of Duty) Second Amendment Rules, 2008-Central Excise Non-Tariff Notification No.45 SC rules Ethylene and propylene manufactured by the assessee and used in its factory in the further manufacture of the same goods would be entitled to the benefit of exemption contained in notification no.217/86-AIT-2008-398-SC New DEPB Rates on export of all products notified–DGFT PN 102 service tax paid under Section 66A is available as 'input credit' under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 provided the said services are used as input services by the manufacturer or producer of final products or a provider of output taxable service-Service Tax Trade Notice No.43/2008 Anti-dumping duty imposed on import of cable ties from China & Taiwan-Customs Tariff Notification No.118 Definitive Anti-dumping duty imposed on import of Phenol from Singapore, South Africa & European Union-Customs Tariff Notification No.114 High-tech products entitled to benefits under High-Tech Products Export Promotion Scheme –DGFT PN 101

JUDGMENTS

CENTRAL EXCISE

CUSTOMS

exchange rate

SERVICE TAX

INCOME TAX

VAT

FINANCE ACTS

FINANCE BILLS

EOU STPI

SEZ

DGFT

RBI

NTT

RESOURCES

Email | Print

Salary paid by Infosys to non-resident employee taxable in India: AAR

AIT News Network

NEW DELHI. Justice PV Reddy Chairman of Authority for Advance Rulings(Income Tax) vide a recent ruling AIT-2007-341-AAR, in case of an employee of Infosys who was deputed to Norway, has ruled that the salary paid by the employer in India is taxable in India, though the assessee is non- resident in India during the relevant financial year. He is not eligible to get any relief in terms of the DTAA.

T H E F A C T S:

The applicant filed a return of income for the assessment year 2006-07 with the ADIT(International Taxation), Chennai, disclosing the income of Rs. 6,56,390/- and paid tax of Rs. 1,49,855/- including the tax withheld. Infosys Technology Ltd., Bangalore, with whom the applicant was employed withheld an amount of Rs.89,639/- towards income-tax by way of deduction from the salary of Rs.5,08,615/-. The applicant was deputed on official duty to Norway by his employer Infosys Technology Ltd., and he worked there for more than 182 days and he was therefore a non-resident for tax purposes.

The applicant received the salary income in India in Indian rupees for the services rendered by him in Norway for a period exceeding 182 days during the financial year. The applicant returned the income and paid the tax without claiming exemption. The applicant's claim was based on the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement which in the instant case is the Indo-Norway DTAA notified on 9th September, 1987.

T H E R U L I N G:

It is common ground that the applicant's liability to pay tax under the relevant charging provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act is not in dispute. Para 2 of Article 16 of DTAA does not come into play in the instant case for the reason that the applicant's stay in Norway was for a period exceeding 182 days in the financial year 2005-06. The taxability of his employment income has to be determined in the light of Para 1 of article 16 only. On an analysis of Article 16(1), it is clear that unless employment is exercised in the other Contracting State, the remuneration derived shall be taxable only in the State of residence. However, if the employment is exercised outside the usual State of residence, the remuneration derived therefrom 'may be taxed' in the state in which the employment was exercised. Thus, it was open to the State in which the employment was exercised to subject the remuneration derived by a resident of a Contracting State. That means, Norway could have taxed the applicant, but it is not the case of the applicant that he has been so taxed or that he paid any tax voluntarily or otherwise, to the Norway Government. In such a situation, no relief is available to the applicant, as rightly contended by the Revenue. It is apposite to note that the expression 'may be taxed' has been used In contradistinction to the expression 'shall be taxable' occurring In Article 16(2). That this distinction is not without significance is emphasized in the Commentary on the OECD Model Convention, which is a valuable aid to the interpretation of treaty provisions. Going by the plain interpretation of the expression 'may be taxed' and the interpretation that has been placed in the said commentary, right of taxation is available to both the Contracting States in regard to the employment income of the applicant in accordance with the relevant domestic laws. We repeat that the applicant has not produced any proof that in exercise of such right, Norway State subjected him to tax or that the applicant made any payment to the State of Norway on account of income tax.

The ruling in British Gas India P. Ltd. AIT-2006-96-AAR does not has any bearing on the issues that has arisen in the present case. The concluding part of the Ruling brings out clearly what has been held there. We quote that portion:

“(i) The salary paid by the applicant to Mr. Manish Gupta shall not be taxable in India, if the same has been offered for tax in the U. K. in pursuance of the DTAA.

(ii) The applicant shall not deduct tax at source from salary paid to Mr. Nipun Pradhan and Mr. Manish Gupta in India, provided it is satisfied from the details and particulars furnished under section 192(2) that taxes have been paid on such payments in the U.K."

In the face of the clear stand of the applicant that no income tax was paid nor offered to be paid on the salary income in Norway, the ratio of that Ruling cannot be called in aid.

Another contention raised by the counsel for the applicant is based on the order of this Authority under section 245R(2) in the same case of British Gas (I) Pvt. Limited AIT-2006-96-AAR.The following observations towards the end of the order have been referred to:

"A careful reading of Explanation (a) would show that the requirement of the Explanation is not leaving India for employment outside India. For the purpose of the Explanation an individual need not be an unemployed person who leaves India for employment outside India. Therefore, the fact that Mr. Gupta was already an employee at the time of leaving India is hardly material or relevant. For all these reasons, we hold that Mr. Manish Gupta is not a resident in India in the financial year 2005-06.”

These observations were made in the context of construing clause (a) of Explanation to section 6(1) of I.T. Act according to which if an individual who is a citizen of India leaves India in any previous year for the purpose of employment outside India, then in relation to that year, he will be resident in India if he is in India for a period or periods amounting in all to 182 days or more. Section 6 of the Income-tax Act defines 'residence in India'. The issue involved and the provision construed was entirely different in that case. The issue was whether the applicant was non-resident during the relevant year so as to be eligible to seek advance ruling. Construing the said provision in section 6, it was held that the applicant - employee was non-resident, irrespective of the fact that the applicant who was already in employment left India on deputation to U.K.

The question raised in the application should be answered in the affirmative and against the applicant. His salary income has been rightly taxed in India and he is not eligible to get any relief in terms of the DTAA.

(Click here for full text of ruling AIT-2007-341-AAR)