Delhi High Court

Delhi HC Disallows Disclosure of PM Cares Fund Documents Under RTI Act, 2005

by

The Delhi High Court in a recent judgment allowed the Income Tax Department’s appeal against the Central Information Commission’s (‘CIC’) order directing the respondent be provided copies of all documents submitted by PM Cares Fund to obtain exemption under Section 80G of the IT Act, 1961. The Delhi High Court’s main reason was that the IT Act, 1961 was a special legislation vis-à-vis the RTI Act, 2005 and provisions of former would prevail in matters relating to disclosure of information of an assessee. The High Court concluded that information relating to an assessee can only be disclosed by the authorities prescribed under Section 138 of IT Act, 1961 and CIC does not have jurisdiction to direct furnishing of information of an assessee. 

Brief Facts 

PM Cares Fund is a charitable fund which was established to provide relief to the public during COVID-19 and other similar emergencies. The Income Tax Department had granted exemption to PM Cares Fund under Section 80G of the IT Act, 1961 on 27.03.2020. The respondent wanted to know the exact procedure followed by the Income Tax Department in granting a swift approval to the PM Cares Fund and whether any rules or procedure were bypassed by the Income Tax Department in granting the approval. On 27.04.2022, the CIC via its order had directed that the respondent be provided copies of all the documents submitted by PM Cares Fund in its exemption application and copies of file notings approving the application. The Income Tax Department approached the Delhi High Court challenging the CIC’s order. 

The Income Tax Department’s primary contentions were that information of an assessee relating to income tax can only be sought under Section 138, IT Act, 1961 and not RTI Act, 2005. And that information sought by the respondent is exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005, i.e., it is personal information, and further that CIC could not have directed disclosure of information without providing an opportunity of hearing to PM Cares Fund. (para 2-5)

The respondent, on the other hand, argued that the non-obstante clause in Section 22, RTI Act, 2005 ensures that it will have an over-riding effect over other statutes for the time being in force. Further that if there are two methods for obtaining information, there was no bar in seeking information under either of the methods. The respondent also argued that the bar of Section 8(1)(j) would not apply as the information sought is not personal information but there is an overriding public interest in disclosing the information. (para 6)    

Reasoning and Decision     

The Delhi High Court’s primary reasoning related to the ‘inconsistency’ between the IT Act, 1961 and RTI Act, 2005 due to non-obstante clauses contained in both the statutes. It is apposite to cite Section 138 in entirety to analyse the the Delhi High Court’s reasoning.

138. (1)(a) The Board or any other income-tax authority specified by it by a general or special order in this behalf may furnish or cause to be furnished to—

  (i) any officer, authority or body performing any functions under any law relating to the imposition of any tax, duty or cess, or to dealings in foreign exchange as defined in clause (n) of section 2 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (42 of 1999); or

 (ii) such officer, authority or body performing functions under any other law as the Central Government may, if in its opinion it is necessary so to do in the public interest, specify by notification in the Official Gazette in this behalf,

any such information received or obtained by any income-tax authority in the performance of his functions under this Act, as may, in the opinion of the Board or other income-tax authority, be necessary for the purpose of enabling the officer, authority or body to perform his or its functions under that law.

(b) Where a person makes an application to the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner in the prescribed form48 for any information relating to any assessee received or obtained by any income-tax authority in the performance of his functions under this Act, the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, if he is satisfied that it is in the public interest so to do, furnish or cause to be furnished the information asked for and his decision in this behalf shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court of law.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or any other law for the time being in force, the Central Government may, having regard to the practices and usages customary or any other relevant factors, by order notified in the Official Gazette, direct that no information or document shall be furnished or produced by a public servant in respect of such matters relating to such class of assessees or except to such authorities as may be specified in the order. (emphasis added)

The non-obstante clause of RTI Act, 2005, contained in Section 22, states as follows: 

The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. (emphasis added)

In my view, the Delhi High Court’s framing of the issue – non-obstante clauses in IT Act, 1961 and RTI Act, 2005 are inconsistent and seemingly in conflict with each other – is erroneous. The non-obstante clause of Section 138(2), IT Act, 1961 overrides only Section 138(1) while Section 22, RTI Act, 2005 overrides every other law for the time being in force. Section 138(2) empowers the Central Government, by an order notified in the Official Gazette, to circumscribe or prevent powers of officers to disclose information under Section 138(1). Section 138(2) cannot be read so say that IT Act, 1961 will override all other laws in matters relating to disclosure of information relating to an assessee. In fact, it is Section 22 of RTI Act, 2005 which states that it will override all other statutes. While both provisions use non-obstante clauses, their scope and effect is different and there is no direct conflict of the manner suggested by the High Court.   

By framing the issue as that of ‘conflict’ of two non-obstante clauses, the Delhi High Court then had to necessarily answer as to which Act would prevail. The High Court was of the opinion that IT Act, 1961 is a special legislation governing all provisions and laws relating to income tax and super tax in the country. While RTI Act, 2005 is a general legislation to enable citizens to exercise and enable their right to information. The High Court did not give too much importance to the dictum that latter legislation prevails over the earlier legislation. The High Court opined that the date on which statutes come into force cannot be the sole deciding factor in determining the application and overriding effect of a legislation, and that in its opinion it is more important that the special legislation, i.e., IT Act, 1961 should prevail over the general legislation, i.e., RTI Act, 2005. Which factors need to be accorded more importance is of course is the discretion of the judges. In this case, the High Court was of the view that the dictum of special legislation should prevail general legislation is of primary importance; the question though arises is: is it a straightforward answer that IT Act, 1961 is a special legislation and RTI Act, 2005 a general legislation? 

The Delhi High Court cited some precedents to this effect which have held that whether a statute is a general or special statute depends on the principal subject-matter and particular perspective. And a legislation can be a general legislation for one subject matter and a special legislation for others. For example – and as cited by the High Court in its judgment – in LIC v DJ Bahadur case, Supreme Court had observed that in matters of nationalisation of LIC the LIC Act is the principal legislation while in matters of employer-employee dispute, the Industrial Disputes Act, 1948 is the principal legislation. Applying this dictum, the High Court made a defensible conclusion that in matters relating to disclosure of information of assessees relating to income tax, IT Act, 1961 is the principal legislation while RTI Act, 2005 is the general legislation.

Finally, the Delhi High Court made another observation that, in my view, is not an accurate reading of Section 138. After noting that Section 138, IT Act, 1961 provides a special procedure for disclosure of information, the High Court observed: 

Applying the said analogy to the facts of the present case, Section 138(1)(b) of the IT Act which specifically states that information relating to an assessee can only be supplied subject to the satisfaction of Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, as the case may be, would prevail over Section 22 of the RTI Act. (emphasis added) (para 18) 

The inaccuracy of the Delhi High Court’s observation is in supplying the word ‘only’ to Section 138. It is trite that in tax jurisprudence, that provisions of a tax statute are to be construed strictly. And strict interpretation of provisions of a tax statute requires that a provision be read as is, without adding or subtracting any words from it. The Delhi High Court in adding the word ‘only’ to Section 138 (1)(b) departed from the doctrine of strict interpretation of tax statutes and for no good reason. The observation that a special legislation – IT Act, 1961 –  prevails over the general legislation – RTI Act, 2005 – cannot form basis of the conclusion that information can ‘only’ be provided under the special statute. A bare reading of Section 138 does not support the High Court’s interpretation.  

Conclusion 

The Delhi High Court’s observations in the impugned case are on shaky grounds. The only defensible part of the judgment is that a special statute prevails over a general statute, but as I argue that issue only arises because the High Court erred in framing the headline issue as that of conflict of non-obstante clauses, when the non-obstante clauses in question have differing scopes and do not necessarily clash. The result is that PM Cares Fund continues to enjoy a certain level of opaqueness that is, in my view, not in public interest. And for the meanwhile, Delhi High Court’s deficient reasoning has provided the opaqueness a convenient legal cover.

Tax Residency Certificate and Stakes in the Blackstone Case – II

by

In the first part of this Article, I detailed Delhi High Court’s decision in the Blackstone case. This part focuses on the immediate and larger issues that are likely to be considered by the Supreme Court in its decision on the appeal against the Delhi High Court’s decision. The central issue in the appeal is likely to be the eligibility for tax benefits under a DTAA, and as one witnessed in the Azadi Bachao case, any legal opinion on the issue will navigate both domestic and international tax law.     

Interpretation of DTAAs

To begin with, DTAAs, a legislative instrument agreed to and signed by two contracting states, needs to be interpreted to decipher the agreement between the two sovereign states. The Delhi High Court had to contend with two issues relating to DTAA: whether Article 13 incorporated the concept of beneficial ownership and the conditions imposed by the LOB clause. With regards to the former, the High Court compared Article 13, as it stood at the relevant time, with other provisions of the DTAA, i.e., Articles 10, 11, and 12 which provide for taxation of dividends, interest, and royalties respectively. The High Court correctly pointed out that in India-Singapore DTAA the concept of beneficial ownership attracted taxation only qua Articles 10,11, and 12 which expressly provided for it and beneficial ownership cannot be read into Article 13 in the absence of any mention of the same in the latter. (para 61)    

The Delhi High Court was also unequivocal in its conclusion that the LOB clause included in Article 24A of the India-Singapore DTAA provides for an objective and not a subjective test. As per the LOB clause, only companies that are not shell companies can claim benefits of the India-Singapore DTAA and to establish if a company is not a shell company there is an expenditure test. The High Court observed that the audited financial statement of Blackstone Singapore and independent chartered accountant certificate established that the expenditure of the company is above the prescribed limit. The High Court rejected the Income Tax Department’s view that Blackstone Singapore was a shell company by observing that all expenditure incurred by it in Singapore, direct and indirect, will be considered an operational expense. The Income Tax Department’s attempt to bifurcate expenses into operational and other expenses was rejected. (para 70) 

In interpreting both Article 13 and LOB clause in Article 24A of the India-Singapore DTAA, the Delhi High Court adopted a good faith interpretation of the treaty. One could also suggest that a strict interpretation was adopted. Either way, it is the acceptable and welcome interpretive approach as it avoids reading into the DTAA phrases and expressions that are not expressly included in its text. Particularly, notable are the Delhi High Court’s observations that LOB clause incorporates an objective test. If the expenditure threshold is met and the expenses are verified, the Income Tax Department cannot form a subjective opinion that the expenses are not operational expenses.   

The interpretation of both the above provisions is likely to be tested before the Supreme Court. Though the Delhi High Court’s opinion stands on firm footing, it is difficult to ascertain how the Supreme Court will approach the same issues. 

Validity of TRCs and Relevance of Azadi Bachao Ratio 

From a domestic tax law perspective, an issue that needs determination is the mandate and requirements of Sections 90(4) and 90(5). As I’ve mentioned in the first part of this article, Section 90(4) states than an assessee, who is not a resident of India, is not entitled to claim any tax relief under DTAA unless it obtains a TRC from the country of residence. And Section 90(5) states that an assessee referred to in sub-section (4) shall provide such other documents and information, as may be prescribed. Both the sub-sections, in no manner, state that TRC is a necessary but not a sufficient condition to claim DTAA benefits. This interpretation is not only borne out by the bare text of the provisions, but also their legislative history. The Delhi High Court, like the Punjab and Haryana High Court, arrived at a correct conclusion that the legislative history of these provisions does not support the Income Tax Department’s argument that it can go behind the TRC issued by a contracting state.   

Further, the appeal will necessarily involve engagement with the Supreme Court’s ratio in Azadi Bachao case. The Azadi Bachao case settled various issues, the relevant portion of the ratio for the purpose of our discussion here are: under Section 119, IT Act, 1961, CBDT possesses the power to issue a Circular stating that TRC issued by Mauritius would be a sufficient evidence of the assessee’s residence status. While the Circular was issued in the context of India-Mauritius DTAA, there is no legal reason why a similar approach would be invalid in the context of India-Singapore DTAA. Especially, as the Delhi High Court noted, the Press Release of the Ministry of Finance issued in 2013 also adopted a similar position. And the Press Release described the general legal position and not in context of India-Mauritius DTAA.   

Nonetheless, the arguments about the scope and mandate of CBDT have reared their head often and will perhaps do so in the future. And the impugned appeal provides an opportunity to raise the issue about CBDT’s powers again. But we do need an understanding beyond the simple dictum that CBDT’s Circulars are binding on the Income Tax Department. If and to what extent do the assessing officers possesses the mandate to scrutinize returns and question the TRC still does not have a straightforward answer. Does CBDT Circular and Azadi Bachao case foreclose any possibility of an assessing officer questioning the TRC? The Supreme Court, in Azadi Bachao case, was categorical in its conclusion that the Circular No. 789 issued by CBDT – mandating acceptance of TRC issued by Mauritius – in reference to India-Mauritius DTAA was within the parameters of CBDT’s powers under Section 119, IT Act, 1961. And the said Circular did not crib, cabin or confine the powers of the assessing officers but only formulated ‘broad guidelines’ to be applied in assessment of assessees covered under the India-Mauritius DTAA.    

Both the above aspects in respect of domestic tax law, specifically IT Act, 1961 will likely be argued and examined in the impugned appeal. The nature and extent of their influence will only be known in due time. 

Way Forward 

Prima facie, there is little to suggest that the Delhi High Court’s view deviates from the accepted interpretation of the Azadi Bachao case and the guiding principles of tax treaty interpretation. Neither is the Delhi High Court’s understanding of legislative history of Section 90(4) and 90(5) incorrect. The Supreme Court can and may have other views. Irrespective of the outcome, the arguments advanced by both parties, the reasoning and approach of the Supreme Court and the outcome of the case will impact Indian tax jurisprudence in multiple ways.  

Tax Residency Certificate and Stakes in Blackstone Case – I

by

In BlackStone case framed the following as the main issue for consideration: whether the Income Tax Department can go behind the tax residency certificate (‘TRC’) issued by another jurisdiction and issue a re-assessment notice under Section 147, IT Act, 1961 to determine the residence status, treaty eligibility and legal ownership. In this article, I will focus only on the issue of TRC. In the first part of this article, I provide a detailed explanation of the case and in the second part I highlight the stakes involved in the case given that the Supreme Court has decided to hear an appeal against the Delhi High Court’s judgment.  

Facts 

Blackstone Capital Partners (Singapore) VI FDI Three Pte. Ltd (‘Blackstone Singapore’) acquired equity shares of Agile Electric Sub Assembly Private Limited, a company incorporated in India in two tranches on 16.08.2013 and 31.10.2013. In the Assessment Year 2016-17, Blackstone Singapore sold all the equity shares. In its return of the income, Blackstone Singapore claimed that the capital gains earned by it on sale of shares were not taxable in India as per Article 13(4) of the India-Singapore DTAA.  The import of Article 13(4) was that capital gains earned by a resident of India or Singapore were taxable only in its resident state. Since Blackstone Singapore possessed a TRC issued by Singapore, it claimed tax exemption in India on its capital gains under the India-Singapore DTAA. On 08.10.2016, Blackstone Singapore’s return was processed with no demand by the Indian Income Tax Department. 

On 31.03.2021 a notice was issued to Blackstone Singapore under Section 148, IT Act, 1961 (reassessment notice). On 28.04.2021 Blackstone Singapore filed its return and requested reasons for re-opening the assessment. Eight months later, on 02.12.2021 Blackstone Singapore was provided reasons for re-opening the case. The primary reason, as per the Income Tax Department, was that Blackstone Singapore was part of US-based management group and it appeared that the source of funds and management of affairs of Blackstone Singapore was from US. And there was an apprehension that Blackstone Singapore was not the beneficial owner of the transaction. The Income Tax Department was claiming that beneficial owner of the shares was Blackstone US, with Blackstone Singapore being a conduit/shell company incorporated to avail tax benefits under the India-Singapore DTAA.  

Blackstone Claims Tax Exemption 

Blackstone Singapore’s case for tax exemption of capital gains was predicated on the following: 

First, Blackstone claimed that it was entitled to claim tax exemption under Article 13(4) of the India-Singapore DTAA. Article 13(4) of the India-Singapore DTAA originally stated that the gains derived by resident of a Contracting State from the alienation of any property other than those mentioned in paragraphs 1,2 and 3 of this Article shall be taxable only in that State. In simple terms it meant that capital gains of a resident of Singapore or India were taxable only in its resident state. Since Blackstone possessed a valid TRC from Singapore, it was as per Article 13(4), not liable to pay tax in India, but in the country of its residence. 

Second, Blackstone relied on the chequered history of the India-Mauritius DTAA. In reference to the India-Mauritius DTAA, CBDT had issued a Circular No. 789 on 13.04.2000 stating if a TRC was issued by the Mauritian authorities, it would constitute sufficient evidence for accepting the status of residence as well as beneficial ownership for applying the DTAA accordingly. And the validity of the said Circular was upheld by the Supreme Court in the Azadi Bachao case and its ratio subsequently approved in the Vodafone case. Analogously, Blackstone Singapore claimed that TRC issued by Singapore should be sufficient to qualify for tax benefits under the India-Singapore DTAA.  

Third, Blackstone cited a Press Release issued by the Ministry of Finance on 01.03.2013 regarding TRC. The Press Release categorically stated that the TRC produced by a resident of a contracting state will be accepted by the Indian Income Tax Department for the purpose that he is a resident of that contracting state and that the income tax authorities in India will not go behind that certificate to question the resident status. The income tax authorities had no option but to accept the validity of TRC issued by Singapore.         

Fourth, Blackstone, to rebut allegations that it was not the beneficial owner or was a shell company in Singapore, argued that it fulfilled the requirements incorporated in the India-Singapore DTAA. Article 3 of the Third Protocol of India-Singapore DTAA added Article 24A in the DTAA w.e.f 01.04.2017. Article 24A contains a detailed LOB clause and as per one of its conditions the resident of one of the Contracting States is prevented from claiming the benefits of DTAA if its annual expenditure on operations in that State was less than Rs 50,00,000 in the immediately preceding period of 24 months from the date the gains arise. In the expenditure was below the prescribed, it was presumed that the company was shell/conduit company. Blackstone Singapore argued that since its expenditure for running the Singapore company was above the prescribed threshold it cannot be considered a shell company and denied treaty benefits. 

Income Tax Department Defends its Interpretation of the Treaty  

First, the Income Tax Department claimed that the management and funding of Blackstone Singapore was in US and not Singapore. And that the ultimate holding company was in US, and Blackstone Singapore entity was used as a conduit since the India-US DTAA did not provide capital gains exemption. The filings of Blackstone Group before SEC, US were used to underline the control of Blackstone, US over Blackstone, Singapore. Further, the Income Tax Department argued that Blackstone, Singapore had a paid-up capital of US $1 and it was hard to believe that it had independently decided to acquire assets worth US $53 million and in two years made profits of US $55 million. 

Second, the Income Tax Department argued that Blackstone Singapore does not meet the LOB test since the expenditure mentioned in the LOB clause is ‘operations expenditure’ and not just an ‘accounting entry’. The Income Tax Department argued that a major part of Blackstone’s expenses were merely management expenses paid to a group company which were nothing more than an accounting entry and did not constitute real expenses.  

Third, the Income Tax Department argued that as per Section 90(4) of the IT Act, 1961, TRC was a ‘necessary’ but not a ‘sufficient’ condition to claim DTAA benefits. And that a TRC is only binding when a court or authority makes an inquiry into it and makes an independent decision. Though a plain reading of Section 90(4) does not support this interpretation.  

Fourth, an extension of the third argument, it was argued that the Press Release of 2013, Supreme Court’s decision in Azadi Bachao case and the CBDT Circulars that were considered in Azadi Bachao case were issued in the context of India-Mauritius DTAA and were not applicable to India-Singapore DTAA. Further, it was contended that Azadi Bachao case did not circumscribe the jurisdiction of an assessing officer in individual cases. And that CBDT Circulars only provide ‘general’ instructions and cannot interfere with quasi-judicial powers of the assessing officers.        

Delhi High Court Favors Blackstone 

On the issue of TRC, the findings of the Delhi High Court were categorically in favor of Blackstone Singapore. The High Court observed that: 

… the entire attempt of the respondent in seeking to question the TRC is wholly contrary to the Government of India’s repeated assurances to foreign investors by way of CBDT Circulars as well as press releases and legislative amendments and decisions of the Courts … (para 71)

The Delhi High Court noted that the actions of the Income Tax Department in questioning the TRCs were contrary to Azadi Bachao, Vodafone cases and other cases. 

On the issue of whether Section 90(4) provides that TRC is a necessary or a sufficient condition to claim DTAA benefits, the Delhi High Court relied on legislative history of Section 90(5) instead of the bare text of Section 90(5). To begin with, Section 90(4) is worded in negative terms and does not use either the word ‘sufficient’ or ‘necessary’. Section 90(4) states that:

            An assessee, not being a resident, to whom an agreement referred to in sub-section (1) applies, shall not be entitled to claim any relief under such agreement unless a certificate of his being a resident in any country outside India or specified territory outside India, as the case may be, is obtained by him from the Government of that country or specified territory. 

Clearly, mere reliance on the bare text of Section 90(4) does not throw sufficient light on whether the TRC constitutes a sufficient evidence of residence in a contracting state. The Delhi High Court referred to Finance Bill, 2013 which proposed to introduce Section 90(5). The proposed draft text of Section 90(5) as contained in Finance Bill, 2013 was: 

The certificate of being a resident in a country outside India or specified territory outside India, as the case may be, referred to in sub-section (4), shall be necessary but not a sufficient condition for claiming any relief under the agreement referred to therein.” 

However, immediately after introduction of the Finance Bill, 2013, the Ministry of Finance issued a clarification via a Press Release clearly stating that a TRC issued by a contracting state would constitute as sufficient evidence of its residence, and the Delhi High Court clarified that the clarification was not Mauritius specific. Since the proposed Section 90(5) was not implemented by the Finance Act, 2013, the Delhi High Court refused to accept the Income Tax Department’s argument that TRC is a necessary but not a sufficient condition to claim DTAA benefits. The High Court also relied on similar reasoning and conclusion arrived at by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the Serco Bpo Pvt Ltd case.  

Accordingly, the Delhi High Court concluded that:

Consequently, the TRC is statutorily the only evidence required to be eligible for the benefit under the DTAA and the respondent’s attempt to question and go behind the TRC is wholly contrary to the Government of India’s consistent policy and repeated assurances to Foreign Investors. In fact, the IRAS has granted the petitioner the TRC after a detailed analysis of the documents, and the Indian Revenue authorities cannot disregard the same as doing the same would be contrary to international law. (para 91) 

Aftermath

The Income Tax Department, unsurprisingly appealed against the Delhi High Court’s decision and the Supreme Court, also unsurprisingly, has stayed the decision. The Supreme Court will, in all likelihood, have a final say on the matter; though in India, the Revenue Department wishes to be final authority on all tax matters. Nonetheless, there are important legal and policy questions that are stake in this case. Based on my understanding, I detail and highlight the stakes involved in the second part of this article. 

Leg History of Sec 90(4) & 90(5), IT Act, 1961

by

The infographic below is a snapshot of the legislative history of Section 90(4) and 90(5) of IT Act, 1961. It provides a summary view of the Income Tax Department’s attempt to include a stringent condition for a non-resident assessee to claim DTAA benefits. The condition, simply stated, was that a TRC issued by a contracting state is a necessary but not a sufficient condition to claim DTAA benefits. It was supposed to allow the Indian income tax authorities to go behind the TRC issued by another state.

The importance and relevance of the legislative history of the aforesaid provisions can be better understood by reading this and this in the wake of Delhi High Court’s decision involving tax benefits under the India-Singapore DTAA. An appeal against the decision is pending before the Supreme Court at the time of publishing this infographic.

Fee Attributable to Transmission of Non-Live Feed Not Royalty: Delhi HC

by

The Delhi High Court in a recent decision[1] held that the fee attributable to ‘non-live’ feed cannot be categorized as royalty under Section 9(1)(vi) of the IT Act, 1961. The High Court relied on the observations in Delhi Race Club case to support its conclusions. 

Facts 

The assessee entered into a tripartite agreement – titled as the ‘Novation Agreement’ – with ESS Singapore and Star India Private Limited by way of which various existing agreements regulating distribution of channels, ads, etc. came to be novated. For the Assessment Year 2015-16, the assessee offered an amount of Rs 65,44,67,199/- as royalty income subject to tax under Section 9(1)(vi) of the IT Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer questioned the assessee as to why out of total income of Rs 1181.63 crores only Rs 65,44,67,199/- was offered for taxation as royalty. The assessee replied that only the income attributable to ‘non-live’ feed was taxable as royalty while the income attributable to ‘live’ feed would not fall within the ambit of royalty as contemplated under Section 9(1)(vi). 

The ITAT noted that in the agreement, under the head of ‘consideration’ the parties acknowledge and agree that 95% of the commercial fee is attributable to live feed and 5% to the non-live feed. The ITAT concluded that the fee from non-live feed would not be covered within the ambit of royalty. The ITAT’s view was assailed by the Revenue before the Delhi High Court. 

Arguments and Decision 

The arguments were straightforward with the Revenue contending that the fee from ‘non-live feed’ was covered within the scope of royalty under Explanation 2 of Section 9(1)(vi) of the IT Act, 1961.  The assessee contended otherwise, primarily relying on, Delhi Race Club case ratio. 

The Delhi High Court cited the ratio of Delhi Race Club case where it was held that live telecast/broadcast is not a work under Section 2(y) of the Copyright Act and thus a live telecast/broadcast would have no copyright. The Delhi High Court in the Delhi Race Club case held that copyright and broadcast reproduction rights are two separate rights and the two rights though akin are nevertheless separate and distinct. Expressing its concurrence with the ratio of Delhi Race Club case, the Delhi High Court in the impugned case observed that: 

In light of the unequivocal conclusions as expressed by the Division Bench in Delhi Race Club and with which we concur, we find that once the Court came to the conclusion that a live telecast would not fall within the ambit of the expression „work‟, it would be wholly erroneous to hold that the income derived by the assessee in respect of „live feed‟ would fall within clause (v) of Explanation 2 to S.9(1)(vi) of the Act. (para 10)

The Delhi High Court in the impugned case was correct and prudently followed the well-reasoned ratio of Delhi Race Club case. The Revenue in an attempt to bring fee from ‘live’ feed within the ambit of royatly, in the impugned case, also sought to place assessee’s income under Explanation 6 to Section 9(1)(vi) which states as follows: 

            … the expression “process” includes and shall be deemed to have always included transmission by satellite (including uplinking, amplification, conversion or down-linking of any signal), cable, optic fibre or by any other similar technology, whether or not such process is secret;

The Delhi High Court correctly rejected the Revenue’s argument noting that Explanation hinges on transmission being via satellite while in the impugned case the transmission happened via SIPL. 

Conclusion 

The Delhi High Court made additional observations on the relationship of international tax law and domestic law and how the former overrides the later. (paras 15-17) From the judgment and the arguments reproduced in the judgment, the context and relevance of international tax law is not entirely clear. Most likely, the High Court was trying to underline that the definition of royalty under the IT Act, 1961 can be amended by the legislature, but if the definition of royalty in the applicable Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement is more beneficial to the assessee it would apply. Or that the definition in an international agreement cannot be negated via domestic actions alone. Nonetheless, the relevance of the High Court’s observations on international tax law are not immediately apparent.   

[1] The Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation v Fox Network Group Singapore PTE Ltd TS-28-HC-2024DEL

The Din Surrounding ‘DIN’

by

The Supreme Court recently granted an interim stay on the Delhi High Court’s judgment wherein it was held that a communication issued by an income tax authority without citing the computer-generated Document Identification Number (‘DIN’) does not have any standing in law. While the one line stay order of the Supreme Court does not mention the reasons, it is worth examining how the Income Tax Department is trying to circumvent the mandate of a Circular issued by its own apex administrative body, i.e., the Central Board of Direct Taxes. 

Contents of the CBDT Circular

Before I elaborate the legal issue involved, it is apposite to summarise the CBDT’s Circular, its aim and content. The CBDT issued a Circular on 14.08.2019 stating that as part of the broader e-governance initiatives as well as Income Tax Department’s move towards computerisation of work, almost all notices and orders are being generated on the Income Tax Business Application Platform (ITBA). However, the Circular noted that some notices were being issued manually without providing an audit trail of communication. To prevent manual communication, the CBDT in exercise of its powers under Section 119, IT Act, 1961 issued the impugned Circular. Paragraph 2 of the Circular mandated that no communication by any income tax authority relating to assessment, appeals, order, exemptions, investigation, etc. shall be issued unless a computer-generated DIN has been allotted and is duly quoted in the body of such communication.    

Paragraph 3 of the Circular enlisted limited exceptions when a manual communication can be issued by an income tax authority. Paragraph 3 envisaged 5 situations: 

  • When there are technical difficulties in generating/allotting/quoting the DIN
  • When communication is required to be issued by an income tax authority who is outside the office 
  • When due to delay in PAN migration, PAN is with non-jurisdictional Assessing Officer
  • When PAN of assessee is not available and proceeding under the IT Act, 1961 is sought to be initiated 
  • When functionality to issue communication is not available in the system 

However, to issue the manual communication in any of the above 5 situations, reasons need to be recorded in writing and prior written permission of Chief Commissioner/Director General of Income Tax is required. Further, the manual communication needs to state the fact that communication is being issued manually without generating a DIN and the date of written approval. For manual communication in situations (i), (ii), and (iii), Paragraph 5 of the Circular states that the communication needs to be ‘regularised’ by uploading it on the System, generating a DIN and communicating the DIN to the assessee. Presumably, the generation of DIN and its communication to assessee would happen on an ex-post basis, but the requirement of generating the DIN needs to be fulfilled nonetheless in these situations.   

Paragraph 4, crucially, and in unambiguous terms states the consequence for not adhering to the mandate of the Circular: any ‘communication which is not in conformity with Para-2 and Para-3 above, shall be treated as invalid and shall be deemed to have never been issued.’   

The above summary of the Circular leaves no doubt that the intent of CBDT is to make manual communication by income tax authorities an exception and electronic communication containing DIN a norm. This is evident in the fact that even when manual communication is allowed under certain exigencies, it needs to be regularised on ITBA to ensure an audit trail. And the seriousness of the intent is reflected in Paragraph 4 which states that a ‘DIN-less’ communication is non-existent in law. 

The above Circular was to have effect from 01.10.2019.   

Legal Issues 

Since the issuance of the Circular, Income Tax Appellate Tribunals and High Courts have, on various instances, opined on the effect of the Circular. The general fact pattern has been that an income tax authority issued a communication after 01.10.2019 without generating the DIN, or without mentioning it in the body of the communication or communicating with the assessee manually without the Income Tax Department being able to justify that any of the 5 exceptional situations existed. The assessees have challenged the ‘DIN-less’ communications as invalid and judicial authorities have pre-dominantly favored the assessee. The three legal prongs on which the decisions stand are: 

First, Circulars issued by CBDT under Section 119 of IT Act, 1961 are binding on the Revenue, i.e., all officers and persons employed in execution of the IT Act, 1961 need to compulsorily adhere to CBDT’s Circular. 

Second, strict interpretation of Paragraphs 2 and 4 of the CBDT Circular. Former requires generation of DIN and quoting it in the body of communication. Accordingly, ex post generation of DIN and communicating it to the assessee or not mentioning the DIN in the body of communication has been held to be non-compliance of the Circular’s mandate. 

Third, the Income Tax Department cannot take recourse to Section 292B of IT Act, 1961. Section 292B, IT Act, 1961 states that any return of income, assessment, notice, etc. shall not be deemed to be invalid merely by reason of any mistake, defect or omission if the communication or proceeding are in substance and effect in conformity with the intent and purpose of IT Act, 1961. Delhi High Court observed that the defence of Section 292B is not available to the Income Tax Department since the ‘phraseology’ used in Paragraph 4 of the Circular is clear: a communication not issued in accordance with the conditions prescribed in Paragraphs 2 and 3 shall have no standing in law. The Delhi High Court’s judgment has now been stayed by the Supreme Court. 

The Income Tax Department in filing a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court challenging the Delhi High Court’s decision is signaling that it is not bound by CBDT’s Circular or that it would only adhere to the Circular if it is aligned with the Department’s interpretation, i.e., generating DIN and quoting it in the body of the communication is only a procedural formality and not following the said procedure should not affect the validity of the communication. The Income Department’s interpretation though is not on sound legal footing as the Circular is clear that not following the prescribed procedure would render the communication non-existent in the eyes of law. What is the middle path that the Supreme Court can invent? Even if the Supreme Court states that the Income Tax Department can claim the defence of Section 292B, it would be akin to reading down Paragraph 4 of the Circular. Perhaps the Income Tax Department can press upon the Supreme Court that if ‘DIN-less’ communications are held to be invalid, it would result in a vacuum in certain assessment proceedings, risk loss of revenue, and create legal uncertainty. This consequential approach has succeeded before Courts in various instances and can possibly have traction in the impugned case as well. But, to my mind, it will not be prudent and would directly contradict CBDT’s stance.  

Issuance of Share Capital Not Taxable: Delhi High Court cites Precedents

by

The Delhi High Court recently pronounced a decision[1] wherein it adhered to the ratio of Vodafone and Nestlecases that investment by a foreign company via shares in its Indian subsidiary company is not income of the latter and not taxable under IT Act, 1961. The High Court relied on the Press Release by the Union of India indicating its approval of the former case and set aside the notices and subsequent orders issued in the impugned case under Section 148, IT Act, 1961. 

Facts 

The Delhi High Court was deciding a bunch of appeals together, and briefly elaborated on facts of one of the cases. The High Court elaborated that the petitioner was foreign company, resident in Italy, and subscribed to shares of its Indian subsidiary company. The petitioner subscribed to 15,00,000 shares at a face value of Rs 10 each and made a foreign remittance of Rs 1,50,00,000. The petitioner stated that since it did not earn any income from any source in India, it did not file any income tax returns in India. The Income Tax Department issued notices under Section 148(b) and passed orders under Section 148(d) of the IT Act, 1961 alleging that income had escaped the assessment. The petitioners challenged the said notice and orders and all the consequent actions taken therein. The petitioners assailed the allegations of money laundering and round tripping arguing that the notices did not mention the name of the company whose shares were bought and the Income Tax Department was merely trying to verify the transaction in question and was unable to substantiate any of its allegations.  

The Income Tax Department justified its actions by referring to risk management strategy. Explanation 1 of Section 148 states that the information with the Assessing Officer which suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment means any information flagged in accordance with the risk management strategy formulated by CBDT. The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of the Explanation as well.  

Decision 

The Delhi High Court primarily relied on Vodafone and Nestle decisions to agree with the petitioners that the transactions in questions were capital account transactions that were incapable of generating any income. And in the absence of income, IT Act, 1961 cannot be invoked. To recall briefly, the Vodafone case involved issuance of shares by an Indian subsidiary company to its foreign holding company. The Assessing Officer disagreed on the valuation and opined that the shares should have been valued on the higher side. The difference between the share price arrived at by the companies and the higher price arrived by the AO was treated as ‘income foregone’ by the Indian subsidiary company. Accordingly, transfer pricing adjustment was made to tax the income foregone as a loan granted by the subsidiary company to its holding company. The Bombay High Court decided that the transaction could not be taxed under IT Act, 1961 reasoning that Chapter X of IT Act, 1961 – encompassing transfer pricing provisions – was incorporated to prevent underreporting of profits and overreporting of losses – and not to levy tax on capital receipts when there was no express provision to levy tax on such capital receipts. 

The Delhi High Court in the impugned case expressed complete concurrence with the Bombay High Court and cited the subsequent acceptance of the Bombay High Court’s decision by the Union of India. In the impugned case, the High Court accordingly set aside the notice and orders issued under Section 148, IT Act, 1961. 

Conclusion 

The Delhi High Court’s decision is, apart from the Nestle case, another instance where the Bombay High Court’s approach in the Vodafone case has received approval and rightly so. The High Court correctly cited the relevant precedents to arrive at its conclusion. Finally, though the petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of Explanation 1 to Section 148, the High Court left the question open. The issue may rear its head in another instance where the concerned Court may find it appropriate to pronounce a decision on the same.     

[1] Ms/ Angeltantoni Test Technologies SRL v Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Intl Tax TS-804-HC-2023-DEL

‘Prima facie’ Section 69A of IT Act, 1961 Inapplicable to Non-Residents: Delhi HC 

by

In a recent decision[1], the Delhi High Court heard an appeal from an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘Tribunal’) where the Tribunal had held that Section 69A, IT Act, 1961 was not applicable to the facts of the case. Accordingly, one of the questions of law that the High Court had to adjudicate was if the Tribunal was correct in holding that Section 69A was inapplicable to the facts of the case. The Revenue Department requested that the High Court may leave open the question for it to be deliberated upon in some other case. The High Court acceded to the request, but still made ‘prima facie’ observations on Section 69A and it is unclear if they will have precedential value. 

Facts 

The assessee, a non-resident living in the United Arab Emirates filed the income tax returns for the Assessment Year 2017-18 declaring income which included savings bank interest and interest on income tax refund. During scrutiny proceedings, the Assessing Officer added additional sum under Section 69A, IT Act, 1961 on account of unexplained entries in the bank account and underreporting of income through interest. The assessee filed an appeal against the addition made by Assessing Officer which was partly allowed by the Commissioner of Income Tax. On second appeal, the Tribunal completely deleted the addition made under Section 69A. The Revenue filed an appeal against the Tribunal’s decision before the High Court. 

High Court’s Observations 

Before I mention that High Court’s observations, it is pertinent to mention Section 69A: 

            Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article and such money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article is not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of acquisition of the money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article, or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the money and the value of the bullion, jewellery or other valuable article may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year. (emphasis added)

The Tribunal noted that the ingredients of Section 69A were not fulfilled in the impugned case as the non-resident was not obliged to and had not maintained books of account, thereby a crucial ingredient of Section 69A was missing. Even on merits, the assessee’s explanation that the entries in the bank account were from his other account in Dubai and the money received on cancellation of a hotel booking and some money was deposited during demonetization was accepted by the Tribunal. The High Court noted that the Tribunal had meticulously examined the facts, the assessee’s explanation was held to be satisfactory and thus the additional money cannot be treated as unexplained money under Section 69A. The High Court refused to interfere in Tribunal’s findings on this matter. 

As regards applicability of Section 69A, the Revenue’s argument was that if the Tribunal’s observation is accepted, i.e., the provision is not applicable to non-residents, if would sanctify the non-maintenance of books by such assessees. (para 5) On this issue, the High Court opined as follows: 

Admittedly, in the present case, the respondent/assessee is a Non- Resident Indian and his source of income in India being from interest on bank accounts and interest on income tax refund, he is not obliged to maintain any books of account in India. It appears to us prima facie that the expression “if any” specifically used in Section 69A of the Act amplifies that where books of account are not maintained, it would not be possible to invoke this provision. But as mentioned above, learned counsel for appellant/revenue requested to keep this question open to be agitated in some better case. We accede to this request. (emphasis added) (para 7)

The Delhi High Court seems to have tentatively agreed to the Tribunal’s view, i.e., in the absence of books of account, Section 69A cannot be invoked. And a non-resident assessee is not obliged to maintain the books of account. This leads to the conclusion that Section 69A cannot be invoked against a non-resident assessee. This is the correct position of law. However, given that the Revenue expressly requested the High Court leave the question of applicability of Section 69A to the impugned case open and the High Court agreed to it, the above observations of the High Court should be treated as obiter dicta. Also, the preface of ‘prima facie’ to the High Court’s observations and the general tenor of the High Court’s observations supports the conclusion that the High Court’s opinion on applicability of Section 69A is not a fully reasoned opinion and should not be treated as a binding precedent.  

Conclusion 

Ideally, the Delhi High Court should have refrained from giving its ‘prima facie’ opinion on the scope and applicability of Section 69A in the impugned case since it agreed to the Revenue’s request to leave the question for deliberation in a subsequent case. However, even though the High Court has expressed it’s tentative opinion on the matter, it is important to treat the above observation as obiter dicta and not the final opinion on applicability and scope of Section 69A.  

[1] The Commissioner of Income Tax v Hersh Washesher Chadha 2023:DHC:8854-DB. 

Delhi High Court Orders Refund of Tax Paid Under Protest

by

In a recent decision[1] the Delhi High Court ordered that the tax paid by assessee under duress should be refunded. The High Court cited CBIC’s Instructions to reason that no recovery of tax dues can be made before passing an adjudication order and that no taxes can be paid while the search and seizure of assessee’s premises is ongoing, unless the tax is paid voluntarily by the assessee. 

Facts 

The petitioner was a company engaged in supply of services in New Delhi and registered under the CGST Act, 2017. Search operations were conducted on the premises of the petitioner on 20.10.2021 by the anti-evasion Dept of GST under Section 67(2). During the search, the petitioner, paid an amount of Rs 2,30,00,000/- and acknowledgement of the payment was issued by the Revenue Department via FORM GST DRC-03. On 21.10.2021 the petitioner wrote an email to the concerned Joint Commissioner that the said payment had been made under protest and the petitioner reserved the right to seek its refund. 

On 23.06.2022, the Revenue Department issued a Show Cause Notice (‘SCN’) to the petitioner under Section 74 read with Section 20 of CGST Act, 2017 demanding payment of GST amounting to Rs 36,53,359/- and sought to appropriate the amount of Rs 2,30,00,000/-. The petitioner under Section 54 had filed for refund of Rs 2,30,00,000/- paid under protest but the same was denied as the Revenue Department issued deficiency memos, i.e., memos indicating that the documents supplied by the petitioner in support of its refund claims were insufficient. Citing the insufficiency of documents, the application for refund was rejected twice. Against the order of refusal of refund, the petitioner approached the Delhi High Court. 

Issues and Decision 

The main issue before the Delhi High Court was whether the petitioner paid Rs 2,30,00,000/- voluntarily or under protest. While the petitioner’s raised other issues regarding the legality of deficiency memos, the High Court’s decision hinged on determining if the payment was made voluntarily or under protest. The High Court concluded that the payment was made under protest and ordered a refund of the amount.

The Delhi High Court noted the relevant facts: that the petitioner made a deposit of cash through cash ledger on 20.10.2021 at 8:41pm. The search operations had started at 3:45pm on 20.10.2021 and continued well beyond business hours until 3am on 21.10.2021. Thus, the cash of Rs 2,30,00,000/- was paid by the petitioner while the search and seizure operation was undergoing. The High Court further noted that it was an admitted fact that the petitioner never admitted its liability to pay the tax and merely deposited the said amount under duress and compelling circumstances. The High Court then referred to Section 73(5) and 73(6) of the CGST Act, 2017. Section 73(1) states that a proper officer may serve a SCN on a person where it appears to the proper officer that the person has not paid the tax or short paid the tax or wrongly availed ITC. Section 73(5) states that: 

The person chargeable with tax may, before service or notice under sub-section (1) or, as the case may be, the statement under sub-section (3), pay the amount of tax along with interest payable thereon under section 50 on the basis of his own ascertainment of such tax or the tax as ascertained by the proper officer and inform the proper officer in writing of such payment.   

Section 73(6) that on receipt of the information, the proper officer shall not serve any notice on the said person. 

The Delhi High Court observed that the above provisions are clearly for the benefit of the taxpayer and voluntary payments can be made before issuance of SCN. However, once the taxpayer pays tax under Section 73(5) but subsequently refutes that  the payment was not voluntary, it must be accepted that the payments were not made voluntarily. The High Court also pointed that the Revenue Department did not follow the requisite procedure in the impugned case as the petitioner was not issued FORM GST DRC-04, which follows the issuance of acknowledgement FORM GST DRC-03. 

Finally, the Delhi High Court cited CBIC’s Instructions wherein it is clearly stated that unpaid tax or short paid tax can only be collected after following the due process, i.e., issuance of SCN and passing of an adjudication order. And no recovery of tax dues can take place during the search or seizure proceedings unless the taxpayer makes the payment voluntarily. 

Conclusion

The Revenue Department in the impugned case inter alia also tried to resist the issuance of refund on the ground that the SCN had been issued to the petitioner after the search proceedings and refund shall only be granted after the proceedings were complete. The High Court endorsed the petitioner’s argument that adjudication of SCN is not a pre-requisite for issuance of refund and that issuance of refund cannot be withheld merely because SCN was issued after the deposit. It is interesting that the Revenue Department tends to make certain claims that have no basis in law, e.g., no refund can be issued until SCN is adjudicated. And it is appreciable that the Courts, at times, if not always, tend to see the ridiculousness of such claims and reject them. 

[1] Sapphire Intrex Ltd v Union of India & Ors 2023: DHC: 8978-DB. 

Cancellation of GST Registration Needs to be Accompanied by Reasons

by

Short Note

In a recent decision[1], the Delhi High Court held that the cancellation of an assessee’s registration under GST cannot be done in an arbitrary fashion and needs to be accompanied by objective reasons. 

Facts 

The assessee in the impugned case was carrying on the business as a sole proprietorship under the name ‘M/s P.S. Metal’ but closed business on 11.11.2019 on account of her ill health. The assessee filed an application on the same date for cancellation of her registration and her application was acknowledged, but not processed. Thereafter, on 12.021.2021, the proper officer issued a showcause notice to the petitioner proposing to cancel the assessee’s registration on the ground of non-filing of returns for a period of six months. The assessee was requested to appear before the proper officer failing which the case would be decided ex parte. The proper officer thereafter passed an ex parte order cancelling the petitioner’s registration, with the order stating that no reply was received to the showcause notice. However, the order did not mention any reasons for cancelling the registration even though the petitioner’s registration was cancelled with retrospective effect from 01.07.2017.  

The assessee challenged the order on various grounds: while the showcause notice asked the assessee to appear for a personal hearing, it did not mention the date, time or venue for personal hearing, the order for cancellation of registration was passed in violation of principles of natural justice, and that the order does not contain any reasons for cancellation of the assessee’s registration. 

Decision

The Delhi High Court accepted the assessee’s contention. The High Court referred to Section 29(2), CGST Act, 2017 which states that the proper may cancel the registration of a person from such date, including any retrospective date, as he may deem fit. The provision specifies various grounds under which the registration may be cancelled with retrospective effect including the registered person having contravened any of the provisions of the Act or not having filed returns for a financial year beyond three months from the due date, etc. The High Court observed that the discretion provided to the proper officer under Section 29(2) cannot be exercised arbitrarily and the decision to cancel registration from retrospective effect must be accompanied with some objective criteria. (para 6)

The Delhi High Court specifically noted the Revenue’s contention that cancellation of registration would have the effect of denying ITC to customers of assessee. The High Court observed that assuming that such a contention is true, it is incumbent on the proper officer to be ‘fully satisfied’ that the registration needs to be cancelled, and that too with retrospective effect. Though in the instant case no reason for cancellation of registration was provided, let alone a reason for cancellation of registration with retrospective effect. 

Accordingly, the Delhi High Court granted the assessee’s request that her registration be cancelled w.e.f. 11.11.2019 since she ceased her business from the said date. 

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s succinct decision in the impugned case throws light on certain practices that the Revenue Department sometimes tends to adopt: issuance of a showcause notice without providing adequate details to the person such as the date and venue for hearing on the notice and the exercise of discretion without providing adequate reasons. The officers have been granted wide and extensive powers under the GST laws to assist in implementation of GST laws and it is necessary that the same are exercised prudently.      

[1] Pratima Tyagi v Commissioner of GST & Anr 2023: DHC: 9025-DB. 

LinkedIn