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

Refined or white sugar, imported upto 31st December 2010 exempted from Customs duty-Customs Tariff Notification No.8 excise exemption notification for Jammu & Kashmir modified-Central Excise Tariff Notification No.1 Air India may lower retirement age to 55 to cut cost Board of Approval to decide fate of denotification of Essar's Hazira SEZ on 11th February Revenue's comments on 1st Discussion Paper on GST-click on the link below for details SC rules service of notice on the assessee under Section 143(2) within the prescribed period of time is a pre-requisite for framing the block assessment under Chapter XIV-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961-AIT-2010-43-SC HC rules assessee is entitled to benefit under Income Tax on delayed payment of PF if the payment is made before the return is filed-AIT-2010-42-HC Authority for Advance Ruling rules the amount received by the foreign company from the Government of Tamil Nadu under the contract is essentially in the nature of “fees for technical services” within the meaning of Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with Article 12.4 of DTAA and cannot be regarded as consideration for the sale of designs and drawings-AIT-2010-38-AAR Authority for Advance Ruling rules payment received by the applicant from VARs (“third party re-sellers”) on account of supplies of software products to the end-customers (from whom the licence fee is collected and appropriated by VAR) does not result in income in the nature of royalty to the applicant and moreover payments received by the applicant cannot be taxed as business profits in India in the absence of permanent establishment as envisaged by Article 7 of the India-Japan Tax Treaty-AIT-2010- 36-AAR lending or borrowing money between two associated enterprises comes within the ambit of international transaction and whether the same is at arms length price has to be considered-The question of rate of interest on the borrowing loan is an integral part of arms length price redetermination in this context-AIT-2010-37-ITAT Export and Import of Currency-RBI Circular No.30 HC rules a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution would be maintainable for questioning reopening of the assessment in a case such as this where the preconditions for the exercise of the power have not been fulfilled-recourse to the power under Section 147 cannot be sustained on a mere change of opinion, there being no failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly, all material facts necessary for assessment-AIT-2010-35-HC Definitive Anti dumping duty imposed on import of Carbon Black used in rubber applications falling under sub heading 2803 00 10, originating in, or exported from, Australia, China PR, Russia and Thailand-Customs Tariff Notification No.6 Tariff Value for import of Brass scrap is 3597 and for poppy seeds 4392-Customs Non-Tariff Notification No. 10 Adjustment of “Advance Tax in respect of Fringe Benefits” for Assessment Year 2010-11 against “Advance Tax”-Income Tax Circular No.2 CBDT clarifies it is the choice of the assessee whether to file an objection before the Dispute Resolution panel against the draft assessment order or not to exercise this option and file an appeal later before CIT (Appeals) against the assessment order passed by the AO

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)