SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI
A.D. JAIN, J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, JJ.
Ericsson AB -Appellant
Versus
Deputy Director of Income-tax, International Taxation, Circle 1(2), New Delhi -Respondent
IT Appeal Nos. 1735 to 1740 (Delhi) of 2011
Decided On : 20-07-2012

Advocates Appeared:
Sandeep Chaufla, Perci Pardiwala, Nitin Vaid, Naveen Dhamija,D.K. Gupta

ORDER

J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member - All these appeals are filed by the assessee and are directed against a common order passed by the CIT(A)-XI, New Delhi dated 23.2.2011 for the A.Ys 1999-2000 to 2004-05.

2. As both parties submitted that the issues are common in all these appeals, for the sake of convenience they are heard together and disposed off by way of this common order.

3. The facts of the case as brought out by the A.O. at paras 1,2,3,4 and 5 of the assessment order which is extracted for ready reference.

"1. The assessee, M/s Ericsson Radio Systems AB, is a company incorporated in Sweden and is a tax resident of Sweden. The company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, Sweden. The main business of the assessee is supply of GSM Mobile Telecommunication system comprising of hardware and software to various cellular companies operation in India (ICO's).

2. The assessee company was not filing its return of income in India. Pursuant to the notices sent by the ITO returns were filed. The return of income for this year was filed on December 4,2001 declaring NIL income. Notice u/s 148 was issued on October 4,2002. Vide letter dated 17.10.2002, it was stated that the return filed on 4.12.2001 may be treated as the return filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act. In response to the notice issued u/s 143(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, Sh. Krishan Malhotra, Sh. Rajiv Monga and Sh. A. Jain of M/s RSM & Co. appeared from time to time. The submissions and details were filed which have been placed on record.

3. The assessee company is globally renowned for its telecom hardware and software products, equipment and expertise. During the year, the assessee has supplied GSM system comprising of hardware and software to the undermentioned ICO's under contracts. These supplies were made under pre-existing contracts signed in earlier years and no fresh contract was entered into by the assessee. The chart showing supplies of hardware and software is as follows.

 
S. No.
Customers
Software US $
Hardware US $
 
1.
Hutchison Max
419,491
279,196
 
2.
RPG Cellular services-Chennai
500,00
31,472
 
3.
Birla AT & T Communications Ltd.
3,331,967
2,954,252
 
4.
TPG Cellcom Limited
396,769
468,507
 
5.
Srinivas Cellcom Limited
760,000
12,035,453
 
6.
Reliance Telecom Limited
391,568
1,237,451
 
7.
JT Mobiles Limited
117,704
1,568,223
 
8.
Hexacom India Ltd.
0
454,734
 
9.
Bharti Televenture Limtied
72,657
363,943
 
10.
Bharti Cellular Limited
0
4,336,896
 
 
Total
5,990,156
23,730,127

4. The assessee (also referred to as ERA) and M/s Ericsson Communications P. Ltd. (now known as Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd. and hereinafter referred to as ECI) are wholly owned subsidiaries of LME Sweden. The nexus between them is represented in the chart below:

 
Eriscsson Radiosystems AB
Ericsson Communications Ltd.
 
(ERA)
(ECI)
 
Subsidiary of LME
Subsidiary of LME
 
(Equipment and software supplier to Indian Customers)
(Installation contractor and marketing support after July, 1996)
 
Non-Resident company
Indian company

5. The income of the assessee has arisen from the following:

(i) Supply of telecom hardware; and ii. Supply of software As in preceding years the claim of the assessee is that they had supplied the equipment at the port in Sweden and their income is not liable to tax in India as per provision of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and the Indo Swedish Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) vide Notification no. GSR 705(E). This issue has been examined at length in the orders passed during earlier years for A.Y. 1997-98, 1998-99 and 2000-01. In these orders my predecessors had held that the assessee company was liable to tax in India both under the Income Tax Act

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top