Home ›

Search Results For: N. Venkataraman

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: July 22, 2020 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 24, 2020 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
The condition precedent for applicability of “fixed place” permanent establishments under Article 5(1) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Treaties is that it should be an establishment “through which the business of an enterprise” is wholly or partly carried on. Further, the profits of the foreign enterprise are taxable only where the said enterprise carries on its core business through a permanent establishment. The maintenance of a fixed place of business which is of a preparatory or auxiliary character in the trade or business of the enterprise would not be considered to be a permanent establishment under Article 5. Also, it is only so much of the profits of the enterprise that may be taxed in the other State as is attributable to that permanent establishment (All imp judgements referred)

Though it was pointed out to the ITAT that there were only two persons working in the Mumbai office, neither of whom was qualified to perform any core activity of the Assessee, the ITAT chose to ignore the same. This being the case, it is clear, therefore, that no permanent establishment has been set up within the meaning of Article 5(1) of the DTAA, as the Mumbai Project Office cannot be said to be a fixed place of business through which the core business of the Assessee was wholly or partly carried on. Also, as correctly argued by Shri Ganesh, the Mumbai Project Office, on the facts of the present case, would fall within Article 5(4)(e) of the DTAA, inasmuch as the office is solely an auxiliary office, meant to act as a liaison office between the Assessee and ONGC

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE: ,
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 22, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 9, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c) Penalty: In the absence of any overt act, which disclosed conscious and material suppression, invocation of Explanation 7 to s. 271(1)(c) in a blanket manner could not only be injurious to the assessee but ultimately would be contrary to the purpose for which it was engrafted in the statute. It might lead to a rather peculiar situation where the assessees who might otherwise accept such determination may be forced to litigate further to escape the clutches of Explanation 7

The Court is also of the opinion that in the absence of any overt act, which disclosed conscious and material suppression, invocation of Explanation 7 in a blanket manner could not only be injurious to the assessee but ultimately would be contrary to the purpose for which it was engrafted in the statute. It might lead to a rather peculiar situation where the assessees who might otherwise accept such determination may be forced to litigate further to escape the clutches of Explanation 7

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: July 20, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 28, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08 to 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 194C/ 194J: No obligation to deduct TDS at stage of making provision for expenditure if payee cannot be identified. No obligation to deduct TDS if services (roaming charges) are rendered without human intervention and are not "technical services"

The assessee has to issue Form 16A prescribed under Rule 31(1)(b) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 for the tax deducted at source. The assessee has to necessarily give the details of name and address of deductee, the PAN of deductee and amount or credited. In this case, the assessee could not identify the name and address of deductee and and his PAN. The assessee also may not be in a position to quantify the amount required for incurring the expenditure for dismantling and restoration of site to its original position. In those circumstances, the provision which requires deduction of tax at source fails. Hence, the assessee cannot be faulted for non-deduction of tax at source while making a provision

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — 2 Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: , ,
DATE: March 16, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 16, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Transfer Pricing: The “bright line test” has no statutory mandate and a broad-brush approach is not mandated or prescribed. Parameters specified in paragraph 17.4 of Special Bench verdict in L. G. Electronics are not binding on the assessee or the Revenue. Matter remanded to the Tribunal for de novo consideration because the legal standards or ratio accepted and applied by the Tribunal was erroneous

Parameters specified in paragraph 17.4 of the order dated 23rd January, 2013 in the case of L.G. Electronics India Pvt Ltd (supra) are not binding on the assesse or the Revenue. The “bright line test” has no statutory mandate and a broad-brush approach is not mandated or prescribed. We disagree with the Revenue and do not accept the overbearing and orotund submission that the exercise to separate “routine” and “non-routine” AMP or brand building exercise by applying “bright line test” of non-comparables should be sanctioned and in all cases, costs or compensation paid for AMP expenses would be “NIL”, or at best would mean the amount or compensation expressly paid for AMP expenses. It would be conspicuously wrong and incorrect to treat the segregated transactional value as “NIL” when in fact the two AEs had treated the international transactions as a package or a single one and contribution is attributed to the aggregate package. Unhesitatingly, we add that in a specific case this criteria and even zero attribution could be possible, but facts should so reveal and require. To this extent, we would disagree with the majority decision in L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. (supra). This would be necessary when the arm‘s length price of the controlled transaction cannot be adequately or reliably determined without segmentation of AMP expenses

Read more ›