Satyam Computer Services Limited v Commissioner of Taxation [2018] FCAFC 172

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Satyam Computer Services Limited v Commissioner of Taxation [2018] FCAFC 172 File number: NSD 1648 of 2017 NSD 1649 of 2017 NSD 1650 of 2017

Judge: ROBERTSON, DAVIES AND WIGNEY JJ

Date of judgment: 11 October 2018

Catchwords: TAXATION – international taxation – double taxation agreement between Australia and the Republic of India (the Indian agreement) – interpretation of double taxation agreements - interaction between domestic tax law and double taxation agreements - where company resident in India for tax purposes – whether payments to the company that are royalties for the purposes of the Indian Agreement but are not otherwise royalties under Australian tax law are deemed to be Australian source income by reason of Article 23 of the Indian Agreement and ss 4 and 5 of the International Tax Agreements Act 1953 (Cth) and therefore included in the company's assessable income for Australian tax purposes

Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) International Tax Agreements Act 1953 (Cth) International Tax Agreements Amendment Act (No 1) 2011 (Cth) Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) Income Tax (International Agreements) Amendment Act (No. 2) 1991 (Cth)

Cases cited: Bywater Investments v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (2016) 260 CLR 169 Chevron Australia Holdings Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (No 4) (2015) 102 ATR 13; [2015] FCA 1092 CIT v P.V.A.L. Kulandagan Chettiar (2004) 267 ITR 654 (SC) CIT v R.M. Muthiah (1993) 202 ITR 508 Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Lamesa Holdings BV (1997) 77 FCR 597 GE Capital Finance Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (2007) 159 FCR 473 Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355 Task Technology Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (2014) 224 FCR 355 Tech Mahindra Limited v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (2015) 101 ATR 755; [2015] FCA 1082 Tech Mahindra Limited v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (2016) 250 FCR 287 Union of India v Azadi Bachao Andolan (2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC) Verizon Communications Singapore Pte Ltd v The Income Tax Officer (2014) 361 ITR 575 (Mad) Wipro Ltd v DCIT (2016) 382 ITR 179 (Karn)