India: AAR Re-Iterates That Intention Of Parties Is Supreme In Determining Whether Contracts Can Be Dissected

Last Updated: 3 October 2016
Article by Shashwat Sharma and T.P. Janani
  • In contracts involving supply, erection and installation of goods and materials, the contract has to be looked at as a whole, i.e., as a composite contract, in the absence of clear demarcation in the contract between supply of goods and services to be performed.
  • The AAR makes a distinction on facts and does not comment on validity of the landmark Ishikawajima Harima case, which held that supply of goods and provision of services were held to be taxable separately (if the contract demarcated the two).
  • In case of cross-border sales, title in goods cannot be considered to be transferred offshore if risks relating to the goods continues to be held by the seller even after the goods reach India. 

Recently, the Authority for Advance Rulings ("AAR") in the case of Mero Asia Pacific Pte Ltd1., has dealt with taxation of payments received by non-residents under a contract involving designing, engineering, supply, fabrication, assembly, erection and installation of goods and materials. The AAR held that in case of such contracts, in the absence of clear demarcation in the contract between supply of goods and services to be performed, the contract has to be looked at as a whole, i.e., as a composite contract. Further, in the context of determining whether payments received under such contract is taxable in India, the AAR analyzed whether or not the sale of goods and materials under the contract was completed outside India. In this case, the sale of goods and materials was made on CIF (cost insurance and freight) basis and invoice for sale was raised when goods and materials were located outside India. However, based on certain factors, the AAR held that the sale could not be considered to have been completed outside India.

In this case, even though the ruling was decided against the taxpayer in light of specific facts involved, on a broader level, the established principle re-iterated by this ruling (that contracts involving sale of goods and supply of services cannot be demarcated unless the intent of the parties to make such demarcation is clear from the terms of the contract) is important from a taxpayer's perspective.


The Delhi International Airports Private Limited ("DIAL") floated a global tender for various works in connection with the design and construction of the Terminal 3 at Delhi Airport which was won by Larsen & Toubro (L&T). L&T later sub-contracted the work under another contract ("Sub-Contract") to Mero Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. ("Taxpayer"). The Taxpayer is a company incorporated under the laws of Singapore and is engaged in the business of executing contracts in relation to structural glazing and wall cladding works. The Taxpayer has project offices in India for execution of such works contracts. However, in relation to the Sub-Contract, its project offices were not involved except as outlined below.

As per the Sub-Contract, the Taxpayer's scope of work comprised "Supply of all the materials, shipment and/or transportation, prefabrication/fabrication, erection, installation, inspection, testing and commissioning, including all the necessary enabling and allied activities for the entire subcontracts works."

Important terms of the Sub-Contract: The Sub-Contract does not expressly indicate when the title to the goods are intended to pass from the Taxpayer to L&T. It provides that the Taxpayer shall provide commercial invoice and certain other documents within 6 days post shipment. It also provides that within 6 days of such documents being provided, L&T and DIAL shall execute a "high seas purchase contract" for the shipment. On arrival of the consignment in India, payment of customs duty and customs clearance are required to be undertaken by the Taxpayer as an agent of DIAL. Further, the Taxpayer has been made responsible for "the timeliness, cost and risk of the shipmen's delivery to the Project Site" in India. Lastly, consideration is to be paid in parts on completion of identified milestones. The consideration payable is expressed in Indian rupees and the place of payment is Delhi; at the option of the Taxpayer, payments were be made in Singapore dollars in Singapore.

Important events: An invoice dated October 10, 2009 was issued by the Taxpayer to L&T in relation to goods for shipment from Shanghai to New Delhi on CIF basis. Bills of lading show the Taxpayer as shipper and L&T as consignee. A certificate of insurance dated October 12, 2009 shows that insured person is the Taxpayer till the goods reach the site in India. High sea sale invoice dated October 22, 2009 shows that L&T has made high sea sale for same goods to DIAL. The Taxpayer received consideration under the Sub-Contract from L&T in Singapore dollars in Singapore.


Whether the revenue earned by the Taxpayer was subject to income tax in India as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("ITA") read with the India Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement with regard to that part of the contract which related to an offshore supply of goods by the Taxpayer to L&T?

The Taxpayer contended that the scope of work under the contract can be divided into supply of goods and the installation and other works to be executed in the airport. The Taxpayer also contended that the title to the goods passed to L&T outside India and payment for goods was made outside India and therefore, the proceeds attributable to the supply of goods should not be taxable in India owing to a lack of territorial nexus as per Section 9(1)(vii) of the ITA.

The Revenue contested that this was a composite contract and was not divisible into offshore and onshore components. Further, it argued that the title to the goods did not pass to L&T outside India.


In the context of the terms of the Sub-Contract, the AAR held that there was no demarcation in the contract between supply of goods and services to be performed. Therefore, it held that the contract has to be looked at as a whole, i.e., as a composite contract. The AAR distinguished this case form the landmark judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ishikawajima Harima Heavy Industries Limited2 where supply of goods and provision of services were held to be taxable separately. In that case, the contract itself clearly made a demarcation between offshore supply of goods and onshore supply of services, including demarcation of consideration attributable to both. Further, in that case, insurance was in the name of the owner of the goods. In this case, while it was contended by the Taxpayer that title in goods passed outside India, insurance was taken with the Taxpayer as the insured person till goods reached the site in India.

Passing of Title and Risk in the Goods: The AAR considered the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act, 1932 to determine whether the sale of goods was completed in India or abroad. The AAR concluded that the intention of the parties regarding the time and place of transfer of title in the goods should be ascertained by considering the terms of the contract, the conduct of the parties and the circumstances of the case. As a general rule, the risk in the property passes along with the title in the property and the seller or supplier of the goods continues to bear the risk of any damage caused to the goods till the time the title is transferred to buyer. In the instant case, the AAR concluded that the parties to the Sub-Contract intended that the property or title in the goods supplied would only pass when the installation and erection of the entire project works is completed. The AAR came to such conclusion, amongst other things, on the basis that: (i) the insurance for the goods was procured by the Taxpayer with itself (and not L&T) as the insured person till the goods reach the site in India, and hence, the risk continued to be borne by the Taxpayer (and not L&T or DIAL) till the time the goods reached the constructions site in India; and (ii) the Taxpayer has been made responsible in the Sub-Contract for "the timeliness, cost and risk of the shipmen's delivery to the Project Site" in India. The fact that the Taxpayer was responsible for customs clearance and for paying customs duty was also considered as signifying the Taxpayer's title over the goods till they reached the site in India, even though such responsibility was required to be discharged by the Taxpayer as an agent of DIAL.

Further, the AAR noted that the payment terms were linked to the various stages of completion of the project as opposed to being demarcated on the basis of supply of goods and services as was the case in Ishikawajima Harima. In view of this and other factors outlined above, the AAR held that the Contract is composite and indivisible and cannot be bifurcated into two different transactions.

Role of Project Office Permanent Establishment: The AAR held that the project office of the Taxpayer played an important role in the transaction and was instrumental in the design and selection of the goods which were supplied by the Taxpayer to L&T abroad.

Further, this project office permanent establishment ("PE") was also responsible for paying customs duty in India to clear the import of the goods sold to L&T abroad once they reached India. As a result the AAR, concluded that all transactions relating to the supply of goods to L&T under the contract were not completed outside India.

In light of the above, the AAR held that the entire amount received by the Taxpayer from L&T is taxable in India.

Analysis and Key Takeaways:

This conclusion of this ruling in the context of composite contracts is an important positive development in several ways. In the context of several contracts for cross-border sale of goods, services such as installation, testing, commissioning, etc., are actually incidental to the sale of goods. Such services, by themselves, generally do not hold any significance for the buyer in the absence of such sale of goods. Therefore, it has generally been an accepted principle that no consideration is separately attributable to such services and the entire consideration payable under the agreement relates to the sale of goods. Therefore, if such sale take place outside India, no part of the consideration is generally taxable in India. This has been re-iterated in several ruling and has also been recognized (through examples) in the memorandum of understanding (MOU) to the India-US tax treaty. Consequently, in the absence of a PE in India, no consideration can be attributable to such onshore services and taxable as "fees for technical services".

In such contracts, often, PE exposure can be mitigated by several means, for example, if services are performed by sending employees to India for a very short duration or if the performance of such services are outsourced on a principal-to-principal basis (i.e., independent contractor basis) to an Indian individual / entity.

Further, the ruling of the AAR in relation to whether a sale of goods is an offshore sale emphasizes the importance of contracts and other documents being carefully drafted / filled-in / executed to properly reflect the intent of the parties without any inconsistencies.

It is commercially well-known that, in case of sales on 'CIF' basis, title in goods pass to the buyer after the goods pass the ship's rail at the port of shipment and the risk of loss of or damage to the goods are transferred from the seller to the buyer. However, the seller has to make payment for the costs, freight and insurance till the goods reach the named port of destination. The insurance required to be taken by the seller is actually against the buyer's risk of loss of or damage to the goods during the carriage. If the buyer wishes to have insurance protection of greater cover, it is possible, if both parties agree to the same expressly. In that context, the fact that insurance was paid by the Taxpayer and that the insurance cover was applicable till the goods reached the site in India should not, by itself, have led to the conclusion that the sale of goods was not completed outside India. However, mistakes such as the certificate of insurance showing the insured person as the seller (and not the buyer) till the goods reach the site in India and imprecise drafting language (such as the Sub-Contract indicating that the Taxpayer is responsible for "the timeliness, cost and risk of the shipmen's delivery to the Project Site" in India), can lead to the intention of the parties being misconstrued.

On a related note, in the case, the AAR has not ruled on the continued application of the principles enunciated in the landmark Ishikawajima Harima case, even though the tax authorities argued on this issue. The Ishikawajima Harima ruling held that supply of goods and provision of services were held to be taxable separately (if the contract demarcated the two). This principle becomes important in cases where the parties intend to demarcate scope of work in such contracts, particularly, where only one part faces risk of PE exposure in India and the other part is not taxable. The AAR distinguished the facts in this case from the facts in Ishikawajima Harima. In previous cases,3the AAR has taken a view that principles outlined in the Ishikawajima Harima ruling has been indirectly overruled by the Supreme Court through its judgment in Vodafone International Holdings BV v. DIT.4 Therefore, an ambiguity prevails on this aspect.

Therefore, from a risk mitigation perspective, where the scope of the contract involves both an onshore and offshore component and a PE in India is involved in executing the onshore leg of the works, it may be preferable to have separate contracts for the goods sold and the services provided, as was the case in Director of Income Tax v. Nokia Networks OY,5 Linde AG, Linde Engineering Division v. Deputy Director of Income Tax,6 and Director Of Income Tax v. L.G. Cable Ltd.7.


1 AAR No. 981 of 2010. Judgment dated August 17, 2016.

2 288 ITR 408 SC

3 ABC, In re, [2012] 345 ITR 119; Roxar Maximum Performance WLL, In re [2012]   349 ITR 189   (AAR); Alstom Transport SA, In re [2012] 349 ITR 292 (AAR)

4 [2012] 341 ITR 1 (SC)

5 [2013] 358 ITR 259 (Delhi)

6 [2014] 365 ITR 1 (Delhi)

7 [2011] 197 Taxman 100 (Delhi)

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions