Case of Authority for Advance Rulings, January 29, 2010 (case Gmp International GmbH Vs Director of Income-tax (International Taxation))

PresidentBatsala Jha Yadav (Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax)
Resolution DateJanuary 29, 2010

Judgment:

Batsala Jha Yadav (Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax), (New Delhi)

  1. The applicant is a Company incorporated under the laws of Germany and is engaged in the business of architectural designs and drawings. In response to a tender invited by the Govt. of Tamil Nadu for preparation of designs and drawings for the construction of a huge complex for Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, the applicant submitted the tender and it was selected as "consultant for supply of the architectural designs and drawings". An Agreement was entered into on 15th Feb, 2008 for the supply of designs and drawings for block A. The applicant was additionally entrusted with the work of preparation of architectural designs and drawings for block B also in October 2008.

  2. The scope of work as contained in Section-1 of the Agreement consists of Architecture (Part I) and Allied fields. As many as 24 items are there under the head ''Architecture''. As regards the allied fields there are four items which will be referred to later on. In order to execute the work, the applicant entered into an agreement with Arch Vista Engineering Projects Pvt. Ltd., Pune and the agreement in this behalf was entered into on 5th May, 2008. That Agreement is known as ''Sub-Consultancy Agreement''. In the course of arguments, the applicant''s counsel while referring to the scope of work under the two Agreements has submitted that most of the work undertaken under the main Agreement was given on sub-contract to Arch Vista, Pune. The learned counsel has pointed out that the main work done by the applicant was furnishing conceptual drawings and designs. We will in due course refer to the details of the works said to have been undertaken exclusively by the applicant. It is the case of the applicant that a team of architects and designers stationed in Germany have produced the designs and drawings and delivered the same to the Govt. electronically by placing the same on the internet in Germany. It is the contention of the applicant that the designs and drawings it has supplied to the Govt. of Tamil Nadu are in the nature of a capital asset or plant. It is pointed out that the consideration has been received by the applicant outside Germany as the amount in Indian rupees has been credited to the overseas bank account of the applicant and the same was received by the applicant in Euros. The crux of the applicant''s case is that the consideration received by the applicant under the contract is not in the nature of fees for technical services, if the scope of work excluding the subcontracted works is taken into account. At best, the consideration paid under the Agreement is liable to be taxed as business profits in India. However, as the applicant does not have a permanent establishment in India, the receipts cannot be subjected to Indian income-tax by virtue of Article 7.1 of the DTAA1 between India and Federal Republic of Germany. The applicant further submits that its personnel in India were there only to gather information and to explain drawings and plans prepared by the applicant''s personnel in Germany. It had to do certain minimal supervisory and coordination activities in regard to the works undertaken by M/s Arch Vista. It is stated that the personnel of the applicant visited India for short durations for a total period of 89 days during the financial year April 2008 to March,2009. The purpose for which the presence of the applicant''s personnel in India was required are set out in the application. On behalf of the applicant, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the sub-Contract Agreement had the approval of Tamil Nadu Govt. and as stated in the application, the payments were made by the Govt. of Tamil Nadu both to the applicant and the sub-contractor (ArchVista) as per the agreed percentages specified in the sub-Contract Agreement.

  3. The following questions (as recast) have been formulated by the applicant for the purpose of seeking advance ruling:

  4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the amounts received by the applicant outside India from the Public Works Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, are in consideration for the sale of designs and drawing, being a capital asset transferred outside India, and whether such receipts would be liable to tax in India under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961?

  5. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the amounts received by the applicant from the Public Works Department, Government of Tamil Nadu is taxable as "Fees for Technical Services" under section (1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with Article 12 -- fees for technical services under the Double Tax Avoidance Agreement entered into between India and Germany?

  6. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case there is a permanent establishment of the applicant in India under the provisions of the Double Tax Avoidance Agreement between India and Germany?

  7. Whether on the facts and circumstances if the answer to question no.3 is in the affirmative, whether the amounts received by the applicant are attributable to such permanent establishment?

  8. If the answer to question no.3 is in the affirmative, whether the income attributable to the PE would not be restricted to the amounts received by the applicant in India and does not include the amounts received by the sub-contractor from the Public Works Department, Government of Tamil Nadu?

  9. If the answer to Question no. 3 is in the affirmative and the answer to Question no. 5 is negative, whether the consultancy charges paid to the sub-contractor on which the Public Works Department, Government of Tamil Nadu deducts tax at source, is a permissible deduction from the income of the applicant?

  10. As mentioned earlier, the contention advanced on behalf of the applicant is that in substance what has been done by the applicant was that a dossier or compilation of documents containing the designs, drawings and blue-prints was provided at the initial stage and it is a case of outright sale of drawings and designs that constitute a capital asset. It is submitted that these designs and drawings were prepared in Germany and the documents were placed on the applicant''s server and thus the electronic delivery took place outside India. The terms of the Agreement required the soft copy and hard copy of the drawings etc. to be provided to the Government of Tamil Nadu and this is what has been sold by the applicant. Though in the Agreement with the Government, a number of items including various technical services are referred to, the applicant did not carry out most of those activities/works as the Indian company was nominated as sub-contractor to do the substantial portion of contracted works. It is pointed out that the applicant was selected on the evaluation of the design concept presented by it and the applicant''s role was mostly confined to the conceptual...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT