Decided on August 06,2014

Swiber Offshore Construction Pte. Ltd. Appellant
Addl. Director Of Income Tax (International Taxation) Range -2 Respondents


Amit Shukla, Member (J) - (1.) THE present appeal has been preferred by the assessee challenging the impugned final assessment order dated 30th November 2012, passed in pursuance of the directions given by the Dispute Resolution Panel -I (DRP), Mumbai, under section 144C(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), on the following grounds: - GOUND NO. 1: Wrongly summoning the Project Manager (appointed as Consultant) of the Appellant under section 131. 1.1 The learned ADIT erred in law in completing the assessment contrary to the provisions of sub -section (13) of section 144C of the Act. GROUND NO. 2: Erroneously held that the Appellant has a Fixed Place PE Service PE and Supervisory PE in India.
(2.) 1 The learned Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") and ADIT erred in law and on facts in concluding that the Appellant had a fixed placed PE in India as per the India -Singapore DTAA. 2.2 The learned ADIT erred in treating the Project Manager as the employee of the Appellant and providing services as its key personnel in India and thereby concluding that the Appellant also had a service PE in India. 2.3 The learned DRP and ADIT erred in holding that the provisions of Article 5(4) of the India Singapore DT AA will also apply which deals with the constitution of a PE in case the supervisory activities in India exceed 183 days in a fiscal year in relation to a construction, installation or assembly project. GROUND NO. 3: Specific provisions dealing with Construction PE of the India -Singapore DTAA ought to be considered over the general provisions. N determiNiNg existeNce of a PE, the learNed ADIT erred iN applyiNg provisioNs of Fixed Place PE uNder Article 5(1), Supervisory PE uNder Article 5(4) aNd Service PE uNder Article 5(6) iNstead of applyiNg oNly the more specific provisioNs of CoNstructioN PE uNder Article 5(3) of the INdia -SiNgapore DTAA as applicable iN the case of the AppellaNt. GROUND NO. 4: ErroNeously held that the AppellaNt has a CoNstructioN PE iN INdia.
(3.) 1 The learned DRP and ADIT has erred in concluding that the Appellant had a construction PE in India as prescribed under Article 5(3) of the India -Singapore DTAA. GROUND NO. 5: Erroneous taxation of the income related to activities carried out outside India.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.