CIT (IT) v. Colgate Palmolive Marketing Sdn Bhd(2023)

🌐 CIT (IT) v. Colgate Palmolive Marketing Sdn Bhd – Bombay High Court Rules: No Royalty/FTS, No PE, No Taxability in India (2024)

📌 Background

Cross-border payments often trigger disputes on whether the income is taxable in India under Section 9(1)(vi)/9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, or whether relief under a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) is available.

In CIT (IT) v. Colgate Palmolive Marketing Sdn Bhd (2024) 460 ITR 284 (Bom HC), the key issue was whether payments received by a Malaysian entity from India constituted royalty, fees for technical services (FTS), or business income, and whether such income was taxable in India without a Permanent Establishment (PE).

The Bombay High Court examined the classification of income, the role of copyright under the Copyright Act, 1957, and the overriding effect of Section 90(2) permitting taxpayers to rely on DTAA provisions when more beneficial.

📂 Facts of the Case

• Assessee: Colgate Palmolive Marketing Sdn Bhd (Malaysia).
• Nature of Income: Receipts from licensing arrangements, marketing/trademark-related transactions, and related business activities.
• Assessment Year: 1999–2000.
• Revenue’s Stand:
  • Payments constituted royalty under Section 9(1)(vi) or fees for technical services under Section 9(1)(vii).
  • Income was taxable in India irrespective of the existence of a PE.
• Assessee’s Stand:
  • No transfer of copyright or technical services occurred.
  • Income was business profits under Article 7 of the India–Malaysia DTAA.
  • Since it had no PE in India, income was not taxable in India.

❓ Point of Dispute

Whether the receipts of the Malaysian entity constitute royalty/FTS taxable in India under Section 9 OR whether they are business profits under Article 7 of the DTAA and therefore taxable only if attributable to a Permanent Establishment in India.

📑 Submissions by the Assessee

• No PE in India:
  The assessee did not have any place of business, office, branch, warehouse, or fixed site in India as required under Article 5.
• No Royalty:
  • The arrangement did not transfer copyright under Section 14(a)/(b) of the Copyright Act.
  • Only use of trademark or marketing material was allowed, but no rights in underlying copyright were assigned.
• No FTS:
  • No managerial, technical, or consultancy services were rendered.
  • Nothing was “made available” to the Indian entity.
• DTAA Benefit (Section 90(2)):
  Even if income falls under Section 9 domestically, the more beneficial DTAA overrides domestic law.

📑 Submissions by the Revenue

• The amounts represented royalty because:
  • Use of the brand, trademarks, logos, and marketing assets is involved.
• Alternatively, payments represent fees for technical services.
• DTAA cannot override domestic provision where royalty is deemed to accrue in India.

⚖️ Legal Principles & Court’s Findings

1. Article 7 – Business Profits (India–Malaysia DTAA)

The Court confirmed:

Income of a Malaysian tax resident is taxable in India only if it carries on business through a PE in India, and only to the extent attributable to such PE.

Since no PE existed, Article 7 completely bars taxation in India.

2. Article 5 – Permanent Establishment

The DTAA defines PE as:

• A fixed place of business
• Branch, office, warehouse, workshop, factory, etc.

The assessee had none in India.

Thus, even if income was business income, it could not be taxed in India.

3. Copyright vs. Trademark Use

The Court relied heavily on the Copyright Act:

• To qualify as royalty, there must be a transfer of copyright rights, not mere usage.
• Section 14(a), 14(b) enumerate exclusive rights requiring formal assignment/license.
• Providing marketing material or brand usage is not a transfer of copyright.

Hence, payments did not constitute royalty.

4. No Technical Services Rendered

There was:

• No managerial/technical expertise shared;
• No technology “made available”;
• No consultancy provision.

Thus, receipts were not FTS under domestic law or under DTAA.

5. DTAA Overrides the Act (Section 90(2))

Even if Revenue attempted to tax under Section 9:

The assessee is entitled to the more beneficial provisions of the DTAA.

Since the DTAA exempts the income (absent PE), domestic deeming provisions cannot apply.

🏁 Held by the High Court

• The assessee had no PE in India.
• Income constituted business profits, not royalty/FTS.
• Under Article 7, business profits are not taxable unless attributable to a PE.
• Therefore, no taxability arises in India.

✅ Practical Impact for Taxpayers

• Brand-use or marketing-support arrangements with foreign entities may not automatically be treated as royalty.
• Absence of PE continues to be a strong defence for foreign taxpayers.
• DTAA interpretation prevails over domestic deeming provisions.
• Important precedent for software licensing, marketing intangibles, and cross-border support services.

🔑 Key Takeaways

1. No PE means no tax, even if income has some nexus with India.
2. Trademark use ≠ Copyright transfer — essential for determining “royalty.”
3. DTAA prevails when more beneficial to the taxpayer.
4. Revenue cannot tax foreign entities merely because the payer is in India.
5. Strong judicial reinforcement of the “business profits” vs. “royalty/FTS” distinction.

📢 Why This Case Matters

This ruling is a significant reaffirmation of treaty protection in cross-border transactions. It prevents overreach in taxing foreign enterprises with no economic presence in India.

The judgment aligns with global tax standards under OECD commentaries, providing clarity for multinational groups engaged in marketing, branding, and ancillary services.

🔍 SEO Meta Details

• Meta Title: CIT v. Colgate Palmolive Marketing Sdn Bhd – Bombay HC Rules No Royalty/FTS Without PE (2024)
• Meta Description: Detailed analysis of the Bombay High Court ruling in CIT (IT) v. Colgate Palmolive Marketing Sdn Bhd (2024) holding that payments to Malaysian entity were not royalty/FTS and not taxable in India absent a PE.
• Keywords: Colgate Palmolive Malaysia case, Section 9(1)(vi), royalty India, FTS India, India Malaysia DTAA, business profits Article 7, PE under Article 5, Bombay High Court tax rulings.