Double Taxation Agreement Between India And France

In this case, it should be noted that the establishment of the Indian establishment is merely a branch of the foreign/noted company that is active in international traffic with the operation of aircraft. Between headquarters and the branch, there are no specific services that appear to be correct, according to the evaluator`s statements, and the tax revenues we have did not distinguish the minutes. The total revenue collected by the branch is transferred to headquarters after the local expenses and the branch`s entry in question come from the public and not from the provision of services at headquarters. As a result, the valuation company does not have a stable establishment in India. Therefore, the Assessing Officer`s finding that the rated company has a stable establishment in India and that, therefore, income arriving in India is taxable is not a correct finding on the basis of the facts to be recorded. B. With regard to the application of sub-note (a) to the income covered by Articles 12 and 13, the French resident who receives these incomes may refer his action to the French competent authority if the amount of tax paid in India in accordance with the provisions of those articles is greater than the amount of French tax attributable to those incomes. If such a situation results in a tax not comparable to the taxation of net income, that competent authority may authorize the unsa crédited amount of tax paid in India as a deduction of French tax levied on other income from foreign income from foreign sources from that resident. The provisions of this paragraph do not apply where, in India, the tax is deemed to be paid under paragraphs (c) and (d). 6. Let the Learned Addl.

Director of Income Tax in the Investment Order did not recognize that the technical salary revenues were covered by the agreement on the prevention of double taxation between India and France and were, as such, tax-exempt income and could not have been taxed in India. With regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A) erred in removing the addition of AO because of the revenue generated by the provision of engineering and stopover assistance services to third parties, although these revenues are not covered by Article 8 of the agreement on the prevention of double taxation between India and France. (vi) Article 8, paragraph 3, of the Convention on the Prevention of Double Taxation between India and the United Kingdom provides that the terms «aircraft operation» are «…. 3. For the purposes of this article, «aircraft operation» means the air transport of persons, live animals, goods or mail by aircraft owners, tenants or charterers, including the sale of air tickets for that transportation on behalf of other activities directly related to that transportation.» These conditions are not included in the two double taxation agreements of this appeal. During the intervention of both parties, it is useful: the relevant points of the decision in Hon`ble High Court in dIT v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines – Lufthansa German Airlines (2017) 392 ITR 218 (Del.), the High Court having found, when the appeals were dismissed, that the notator participated in the international technical pool of airlines and that he realized certain revenues from these activities and also made expenses.