Whether royalty income earned by the taxpayer can be said to be ‘effectively connected’ with its permanent establishment (PE) in India, so as to be taxable as per the ‘business income’ article of the India-Australia Tax Treaty (Treaty).

[2009-TIOL-06-ARA-IT] (AAR)

Date : 30.03.2009

Article 12 of India-Australia DTAA

Issues :

Whether royalty income earned by the taxpayer can be said
to be ‘effectively connected’ with its permanent establishment (PE) in India,
so as to be taxable as per the ‘business income’ article of the
India-Australia Tax Treaty (Treaty).

 

Facts :

Ø A company incorporated in Australia (Ausco), is in the
business of providing professional services to the energy and resources
industry. Ausco entered into a contract with Reliance Petroleum Limited, an
Indian Company (ICo) for providing certain services in connection with the
ICo’s project of laying cross-country pipelines for the transportation of
hydro-carbons.

Ø Ausco entered into the following separate contracts
with the ICo :

G Basic Engineering and Procurement Services Contract
(BE&P), which was divided into two phases. Phase I was further divided
into 2 parts, viz., Basic Engineering and Procurement Services. In
respect of Basic Engineering services, 80% of the work was performed in
Australia and the balance was performed in India. In respect of the work
which was performed in India, Ausco’s employee had made short duration
visits to India for inspection, topography study, preparation of route
map, etc.).

G Ausco was entitled to a lump sum consideration for
all components under the BE&P.

G Project Management Services Contract (PMS). For this
Ausco’s employees were present in India for a significant period. The
employees were provided office space by the local engineering contractor,
for the performance of services under PMS.

G In terms of India-Australia Treaty, it was admitted
by the applicant that the amount was chargeable to tax in India under
Article XII of the Treaty as royalty income. The applicant also submitted
that it had PE in India.

Ø In its application, Ausco submitted before the AAR that
both (a) the contract BE&P and PMS were integral part of single contract and
hence entirety of royalty income was ‘effectively connected’ with the PE in
India; (b) In terms Article XII (4) (herein referred to as ‘the PE exclusion
rule’) of the Treaty, the amount was chargeable to tax as business income in
terms of Article VII of the Treaty; and (c) In terms of Article VII, only
that part of the profits, which was attributable to the PE, can be charged
to tax in India. For this, the applicant relied on the SC decision in
Ishikawajima Harima Heavy Industries [288 ITR 408], to contend that where
income is in respect of services rendered outside India, it is not liable to
be taxed in India in terms of the domestic law provisions.

Ø The Tax Department however contended that services
performed outside India in terms of Phase I of the BE&P were not
‘effectively connected’ with the PE of the Taxpayer in India and hence the
PE exclusion rule did not apply. Consequently, the royalty receipts were
taxable in terms of Article XII of the Treaty. The department obtained that
the SC decision in Ishikawajima’s case was distinguishable.

Held :

The AAR considered the taxability of the applicant under
Article XII and Article VII of the Tax Treaty. The AAR held :

1. Article VII (7), which paves way for the operation of
other specific articles of the Treaty, does not dilute the impact of the PE
exclusion Rule contemplated in terms of other Articles of the Treaty. If the
specific Articles provide for taxation of income under Article 7, the
receipt will be taxable as business income in terms of other provisions of
the treaty.

2. In case of royalty, the PE exclusion rule applies
where there is an ‘effective connection’ between the royalty generating
services and the PE. Mere presence of a PE for carrying out some other
activities is not sufficient for establishing an effective connection. For
royalty to be ‘effectively connected’ to the PE, the PE in India should be
engaged in the performance of royalty generating services and should
facilitate performance of such services.

3. ‘Effectively connected’ means ‘really connected’ and
the connection should not only be in ‘form’, but also in ‘substance’. A
pragmatic and purposive approach needs to be adopted for construing whether
or not an ‘effective connection’ exists between the PE and the royalty
income. The set-up, the functions, the purpose and duration of the PE, etc.
are relevant factors for determining this aspect.

4. The words ‘effectively connected with the PE’ are not
words of redundancy and should be given their due meaning. A real and
perceptible connection should exist to fulfil the condition before the
receipt can be treated as effectively connected with PE.

5. For the PE exclusion rule to get triggered, the PE
must have substantial activities and such securities must be carried out
over a period of time. A nominal establishment with skeletal staff,
attending to minimal or negligible work may not be sufficient to trigger the
PE exclusion rule on the ground of ‘effective connection’.

6. In the case of the applicant, BE&P and PMS contracts
are separate contracts covering different phases of the projects having
different rights and obligations. The nature of services and consideration
in respect of each one are separate and distinct. As a result, each
contract, although relating to the same project, needs to be seen
independently for determining the effective connection with the PE.

7. The SC ruling in the case of Ishikawajima cannot be
read to mean that the mere existence of a PE is enough to trigger the PE
exclusion rule and cause royalty income to be assessed as business income.
It does, however, imply that there may be situations where, though the
royalty may be ‘effectively connected’ with the PE, it may still not be
‘attributable’ to the PE.

8. The AAR observed that the SC decision is
distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the present case. The AAR
held that the SC was concerned with the PE exclusion rule in respect of the
India-Japan Tax Treaty, which gets triggered when ‘right, property or
contract’ is ‘effectively connected.