All material subject to strictly enforced copyright laws. © 2022 ITR is part of the Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC group.

Indian tax treaty benefits available without providing a tax residency certificate

mysore-palace-600 x 375

A recent court ruling means non-resident taxpayers could now claim relief under a tax treaty without obtaining a tax residency certificate (TRC) from their country of residence.

The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal recently ruled that not providing a TRC cannot preclude a non-resident from availing treaty benefits, as long as the taxpayer is able to substantiate their residency through other evidence.

Indian law contains a broad treaty override provision which states that in respect of non-residents to whom a treaty applies, the provisions of domestic law apply only to the extent that they are more beneficial than the treaty. The tribunal held that the provision making it mandatory for a non-resident to obtain a TRC did not prevail over this general treaty override provision.

It also noted that this requirement of a TRC could not be construed as a limitation to the supremacy of a treaty over domestic law, and that it could be treated only as a beneficial provision (i.e. once a non-resident provided a TRC in the format required by law, the tax authorities could not requisition further details to support the non-resident's claim for treaty benefits).

Preparatory activities prior to entering into a contract are not to be considered when determining the duration for installation permanent establishment (PE)

Under the India-Cyprus treaty, a building site, construction, assembly or installation project, or related supervisory activities constitute a PE if the site, project, or activities remain operational for more than 12 months. The tribunal in the case of Bellsea Limited ruled that preparatory and auxiliary activities involving collecting data and information to make the bid could not be included when calculating the 12-month period.

The tribunal also noted that the taxpayer had not installed a project office or developed a site prior to entering into the contract. It held that preparatory activity purely for making a bid before entering into the contract, and without carrying out any activity of economic substance or active work, ought not to be regarded as activities for carrying out installation or construction in India. The tribunal also clarified that this principle would not extend to active preparatory or auxiliary work carried out after the contract was awarded.

Dharawat
Gangadharan

Rakesh Dharawat (rakesh.dharawat@dhruvaadvisors.com) and Hariharan Gangadharan (hariharan.gangadharan@dhruvaadvisors.com)

Dhruva Advisors

Tel: +91 22 6108 1000

Website: www.dhruvaadvisors.com

more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

The Italian government published plans to levy capital gains tax on cryptocurrency transactions, while Brazil and the UK signed a new tax treaty.
Multinational companies fear the scrutiny of aggressive tax audits may be overstepping the mark on transfer pricing methodology.
Standardisation and outsourcing are two possible solutions amid increasing regulations and scrutiny on transfer pricing, say sources.
Inaugural awards announces winners
The UN’s decision to seek a leadership role in global tax policy could be a crucial turning point but won’t be the end of the OECD, say tax experts.
The UN may be set to assume a global role in tax policy that would rival the OECD, while automakers lobby the US to change its tax rules on Chinese materials.
Companies including Valentino and EveryMatrix say the early adoption of EU public CbCR rules could boost transparency of local and foreign MNEs, despite the short notice.
ITR invites tax firms, in-house teams, and tax professionals to make submissions for the 2023 ITR Tax Awards in Asia-Pacific, Europe Middle East & Africa, and the Americas.
Tax authorities and customs are failing multinationals by creating uncertainty with contradictory assessment and guidance, say in-house tax directors.
The CJEU said the General Court erred in law when it ruled that both companies benefitted from Italian state aid.