Search Results For: K. R. Sekar


Hyundai Motor India Limited vs. DCIT (ITAT Chennai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: April 27, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 9, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Transfer Pricing AMP Adjustment: Entire law on whether the advertisement expenditure incurred by the Indian AE towards brand of a foreign company can be treated as an “international transaction” and whether a notional adjustment can be made in the hands of the Indian AE towards compensation receivable from the foreign AE for “deemed brand development” explained

A service has to be conscious activity and it cannot be a subliminal exercise- as is the impact on brand value in this case. A service, by definition, is an act of helping, or doing something on behalf of, someone. A passive exercise cannot be defined as a service. Every benefit accruing to an AE, as a result of dealing with another AE, is not on account of service by the other AE. What I benchmarked is not the accrual of ‘benefit’ but rendition of ‘service’. All benefits are not accounts or services by someone, just as all services do not result in benefits to the parties. The expressions ‘benefit’ and ‘service’ have different connotations, and what is truly relevant, for the purpose of definition of ‘international transaction’ in Indian context, is ‘service’- not the benefit. There is no rendition of service in the present context

Nagarjuna Fertilizers and Chemicals Limited vs. ACIT (ITAT Hyderabad) (Special Bench)

COURT:
CORAM: , ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE: ,
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL: , , , ,
DATE: February 13, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 22, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 206AA does not have an overriding effect over the other provisions of the Act. By virtue of s. 90(2), the provisions of the Treaty override s. 206AA to the extent they are beneficial to the assessee. Consequently, the payer cannot be held liable to deduct tax at higher of the rates prescribed in s. 206AA in case of payments made to non-resident persons in spite of their failure to furnish the PAN

In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the provisions of section 206AA of the Act will not have a overriding effect for all other provisions of the Act and the provisions of the Treaty to the extent they are beneficial to the assessee will override sect ion 206AA by virtue of section 90(2). In our opinion, the assessee therefore cannot be held liable to deduct tax at higher of the rates prescribed in section 206AA in case of payments made to non-resident persons having taxable income in India in spite of their failure to furnish the Permanent Account Numbers

Top