Introduction
In the realm of international taxation, disputes often arise concerning the interpretation and application of double taxation avoidance agreements (‘DTAA’). Such agreements aim to prevent double taxation of the same income in two different jurisdictions. The case of M/s Corning SAS India v. Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax[i] is a notable illustration of one such dispute, where the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench (‘ITAT’) has rendered a decision concerning the taxation of interest on income tax refund received by a foreign entity operating in India.
Brief Facts
M/s Corning SAS India (‘CSI’), a French entity engaged in selling ophthalmic and life science products, established a branch office (‘BO’) in India in 1997. Effective from 01.02.2012, the entire business operations in India were transferred to a group company, rendering its Indian BO inactive during the assessment year (‘AY’) 2018-19.
During previous AYs (2001-02 and 2003-04), when its Indian BO was operational, CSI overpaid income tax (‘IT’) on its business profits, resulting in a refund. Further, CSI received Rs. 1,79,47,179/- as interest from the IT department on such IT refunds during the AY under consideration i.e. 2018-19. In its IT return, CSI offered the interest income for taxation in India under the provisions of the India-France DTAA at the rate of 10%.
The Assessing Officer (‘AO’) sought to tax such interest income at a higher rate of 40%, treating it as business income under a. 7 of the India-France DTAA, based on the premise that the BO constituted a Permanent Establishment (‘PE’) of CSI in India. The dispute resolution panel affirmed the AO’s decision, leading to an appeal by CSI before the ITAT wherein the central argument was whether the interest income is effectively connected with the PE of the assessee in India.
Held
The ITAT allowed the appeal by the assessee, setting aside the order of the AO and directed that the interest income on the IT refund be taxed at the rate of 10% under a. 12(2) of the India-France DTAA. This decision was based on the following findings:
The interest on IT refund received by the company is not effectively connected with the PE in India, as the BO had ceased business activities since February 2012.
A. 12(5) of the India-France DTAA, which deals with the taxation of interest income, does not apply in this case since the interest income is not effectively connected with the PE.
The ITAT also noted precedent-setting decisions and jurisprudential principles, including the Clough Engineering Ltd v. ACIT[ii] case, to support its conclusion.
Analysis
The ITAT’s decision underscores the importance of determining the effective connection of income with a PE for tax purposes, especially in the context of DTAA provisions. It emphasizes that the mere existence of a PE does not automatically subject all income to taxation under a. 7 of the DTAA.
The analysis provided by the ITAT elucidates the nuanced interpretation of treaty provisions, the necessity to examine the factual matrix of each case to ascertain the correct tax treatment and the application of treaty provisions to specific income streams.
Moreover, the ITAT’s reliance on precedent and legal principles highlights the consistency and coherence in international tax jurisprudence, providing clarity to taxpayers and tax authorities alike.
End Notes:
[i] [2024] 159 taxmann.com 359 (Delhi - Trib.), dated 06.02.2024.
[ii] [2017] 83 taxmann.com 170 (Delhi - Trib.), dated 13.04.2017.
Authored by Nitish Solanki, Advocate at Metalegal Advocates. The views expressed are personal and do not constitute legal opinion.
More Insights
24-07-2026
10
min read
‘Shylockian’ Lending is ‘Squeezing of Blood’: NCLT Moves Beyond Debt & Default to Reject a Section 7 Application
In a rare departure from the conventional debt-and-default enquiry under section 7 of the IBC, the NCLT, Kochi Bench rejected the financial creditors' petition after characterizing the underlying arrangement as a ‘Shylockian system’ of lending. This court ruling discusses Shylockian lending and examines the strength of the Tribunal's focus on the economic substance of the transaction against established legal principles governing admission under section 7 of the IBC.
10-07-2026
7
min read
Faceless Reassessment after S. 147A: What the Supreme Court Did – and Did Not – Decide
The Supreme Court's decision in Tej Pratap Singh does not settle the JAO–FAO controversy. Following Parliament's retrospective insertion of s. 147A, it remands the issue to the High Courts for fresh consideration. Faceless reassessment was never merely about moving tax files from paper to portal; it fundamentally changed the statutory authority responsible for communicating with the taxpayer, examining the record, drafting the order and completing the assessment. The real question now is how far a retrospective legislative clarification can go.
22-06-2026
8
min read
Claim Admission is not Debt Acknowledgement: Supreme Court on RP’s Role & Limitation under the IBC
Can admission of a claim by a Resolution Professional extend limitation under section 18 of the Limitation Act? In Shankar Khandelwal v. Omkara Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd., the Supreme Court answered this question in the negative, holding that claim admission during CIRP is merely a statutory claim-verification process and not an acknowledgement of debt. The ruling clarifies the RP’s non-adjudicatory role and reinforces important principles governing limitation under the IBC.