| Case ID |
30b4802b-7226-420a-a827-d0904c4bc9f9 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
IT REFERENCE CASE No. 45 OF 1995 |
| Decision Date |
Mar 17, 2004 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Tribunal ruled that the engineering fees received by the non-resident company, AEG Aktiengesellschaft, were to be classified as 'fees for technical services' under the provisions of the Income-tax Act and the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Germany. The court affirmed that payments made to the company for engineering services were taxable in India, even though the services were rendered outside India. The Tribunal found no merit in the argument that the engineering fees should be treated as part of plant and machinery. The decision established that the nature of the services rendered and the terms of the contract clearly indicated that the fees were for technical services, and thus subject to Indian tax laws. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case of AEG Aktiengesellschaft v. Commissioner of Income Tax, the Karnataka High Court addressed crucial issues regarding the taxation of fees for technical services under the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTA) between India and Germany. The case involved a non-resident company, AEG Aktiengesellschaft, which provided engineering services related to the Light and Medium Merchant Mills project in India. The court ruled that the fees received by AEG were indeed 'fees for technical services' and thus taxable in India despite the services being rendered abroad. This decision underscores the importance of understanding the classification of income under tax laws and the implications of international agreements on taxation. Keywords such as 'Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement', 'Income-tax Act', and 'fees for technical services' are pivotal in this case, highlighting the intersection of international tax law and domestic regulations. |
| Court |
Karnataka High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Vishakapatnam Steel Plant,
Metullargical Engineering Consultants (India) Ltd.,
Indian company 'M'
|
| Judges |
P. Vishwanatha Shetty,
Ajit J. Gunjal
|
| Lawyers |
G. Sarangan,
S. Parthasarathy,
M.V. Seshachala
|
| Petitioners |
AEG Aktiengesellschaft
|
| Respondents |
Commissioner of Income Tax
|
| Citations |
2004 SLD 3095,
(2004) 267 ITR 209
|
| Other Citations |
CIT v. Standard Triumph Motor Co. Ltd. [1979] 119 ITR 573 (Mad.),
Standard Triumph Motor Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1993] 201 ITR 391/ 67 Taxman 160 (SC),
Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs [2001] 124 STC 59 (SC),
Commissioner of Customs v. Parasrampuria Synthetics Ltd. [2002] 125 STC 255 (SC),
Scientific Engg. House (P.) Ltd.v. CIT [1986] 157 ITR 86/[1985] 23 Taxman 66 (SC),
CIT v. Davy Ashmore India Ltd. [1991] 190 ITR 626 (Cal.),
CIT v. Klayman Porcelains Ltd. [1998] 229 ITR 735/ 96 Taxman 221 (AP),
Habib Hussein v. CIT [1963] 48 ITR 859 (Bom.),
CIT v. Nayveli Lignite Corpn. Ltd. [2000] 243 ITR 459/ 113 Taxman 206 (Mad.),
CIT v. Koyo Seiko Co. Ltd. [1998] 233 ITR 421/[1999] 102 Taxman 291 (AP),
Ceat International S.A. v. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 859/ 103 Taxman 153 (Bom.),
International Operating Services Ltd. v. CIT [1999] 228 ITR 599/[1998] 96 Taxman 215 (Kar.),
CIT v. Energomach Exports [1998] 232 ITR 448/ 101 Taxman 253 (Kar.),
Arabian Express Line Ltd. of United Kingdom v. Union of India [1995] 212 ITR 31/ 82 Taxman 6 (Guj.),
CBDT v. Oberoi Hotels (India) (P.) Ltd. [1998] 231 ITR 148/ 97 Taxman 453 (SC),
CIT v. Copes Vulcan Inc. USA [1987] 30 Taxman 549 (Mad.)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
9,
90
|