Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 206AA - Whether the Tribunal is right in holding that the TDS provisions have to be read along with DTAA for computing the tax liability and therefore when the recipient is eligible for benefit of DTAA then there is no scope for deduction of tax @ 20% under Section 206AA of the Act – HELD - the assessee has made payment towards technical services to various recipients in different countries as per DTAA with different countries - In the case of Danisco, the Delhi High Court has held that Section 206AA cannot be understood to override the charging Sections 4 and 5 of the Act - It was further held that the provision in Section 206-AA has to be read down to mean that where the deductee i.e., the overseas resident business concern conducts its operation from a territory, whose Government has entered into a DTAA with India, the rate of taxation would be as dictated by the provisions of the treaty - the maximum deduction shall not exceed 10% which the assessee has deducted. Any other interpretation to permit the taxing authority to raise a demand beyond 10% would be incongruous – Revenue contention that if the law laid down in Danisco is to be applied, Section 206-AA of the Act would be rendered redundant, is untenable in the facts of this case because there exists DTAA and tax deduction has been made at source as mandated by the said agreement - question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue – revenue appeal is dismissed

2022-VIL-270-KAR-IT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED: 29.11.2022

INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 181 OF 2019

C/W

INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 182 OF 2019

INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 183 OF 2019

INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 184 OF 2019

1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, BENGALURU

2. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, BENGALURU

Vs

M/s WIPRO LTD

FOR COMMON APPELLANTS: SRI. ARAVIND K.V., STANDING COUNSEL

FOR COMMON RESPONDENT: SRI. R B KRISHNA, ADVOCATE

BENCH

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T G SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

JUDGMENT

These appeals by the Revenue challenging the common order dated 12.02.2016 passed in S.P. Nos. 175 to 178/Bang/2013 (in I.T.(I.T.)A. Nos. 1544 to 1547/Bang/2013) (Assessment year: 2011-12), have been admitted to consider following substantial question of law:

"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law holding that the TDS provisions in the Act has to be read along with DTAA for computing the tax liability on the sum in question and therefore when the recipient is eligible for benefit of DTAA then there is no scope for deduction of tax @ 20% under Section 206AA of the Act when the assessing authority has rightly invoked said provision as conditions set out in said provisions are satisfied in case of assessee?

3. At the outset, Shri. R.B. Krishna, learned advocate for the respondent submitted that the assessee has paid fee for technical services to various entities in the four quarters during the assessment year 2011-12. He contended that the Tax Deducted at Source shall be in terms of the relevant Article in respective agreements for Avoidance of Double Taxation in various countries. Adverting to one such agreement with Germany, annexed with the written submission, he pointed out that the rate of tax shall not exceed 10% in the case of Germany.

4. Placing reliance on the case of Danisco India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Union of India and Others [(2018) 404 ITR 539 (Delhi)], Shri. Krishna, submitted that Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (for short 'DTAA') has overriding effect and any subsequent amendment to nullify the effect of provision prior to the amendment has been read down by the Delhi High Court, whereas the Assessing Officer has applied provision of Section 200-A of the Income Tax Act (for short 'the Act') and has raised a demand for the remaining 10%. In substance, he submitted that the issue is covered by the decision in the case of Danisco (Supra) against the revenue.

5. Shri. Aravind, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue adverting to Section 206-AA of the Act submitted that every payee is required to furnish a Permanent Account Number and in the absence of the same, the rate of tax applicable shall be 20% in terms of Section 206-AA(1)(iii). He argued that admittedly PAN numbers have not been furnished. Therefore, the authority in Danisco is not applicable to the facts of this case.

6. We have carefully perused the rival contentions and perused the records.

7. It is not in dispute that the assessee has made payment towards technical services to various recipients in different countries as per DTAA with different countries. In the case of Danisco, the Delhi High Court has held that Section 206AA cannot be understood to override the charging Sections 4 and 5 of the Act. It has further held that the provision in Section 206-AA has to be read down to mean that where the deductee i.e., the overseas resident business concern conducts its operation from a territory, whose Government has entered into a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement with India, the rate of taxation would be as dictated by the provisions of the treaty.

8. Thus, we are in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Delhi high Court. As per the DTAA, the maximum deduction shall not exceed 10% which the assessee has deducted. Any other interpretation to permit the taxing authority to raise a demand beyond 10% would be incongruous.

9. Shri Aravind, also contended that if the law laid down in Danisco is to be applied, Section 206-AA of the Act would be rendered redundant.

10. In our view, such contention is untenable in the facts of this case because there exists DTAA and tax deduction has been made at source as mandated by the said agreement.

11. In view of the above, these appeals fail and they are accordingly, dismissed. The question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.

No costs.

In view of the disposal of the appeals, all pending interlocutory applications stand disposed of.

DISCLAIMER: Though all efforts have been made to reproduce the order accurately and correctly however the access, usage and circulation is subject to the condition that publisher is not responsible/liable for any loss or damage caused to anyone due to any mistake/error/omissions.