Home › › Page 10

Search Results For: International Tax

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: May 18, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 27, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2004-05, 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Consideration for supply of software (whether with or without equipment) is not taxable as "royalty" if there is no transfer of right in the copyright to the software

There was no transfer of any right in respect of copyright by the assessee and it was a case of mere transfer of a copyrighted article. The payment is for a copyrighted article and represents the purchase price of an article. Hence, the payment for the same is not in the nature of royalty under Article 12 of the Tax Treaty. The receipts would constitute business receipts in the hands of the Assessee and is to be assessed as business income subject to assessee having business connection/ PE in India

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 29, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 9, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2001-02, 2004-05, 2005-06
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Indian agent of foreign company cannot be regarded as "Dependent Agent Permanent Establishment" if agent has no power to conclude contracts. If the agent is remunerated at arms' length basis, no further profit can be attributed to the foreign company. It is doubtful whether retrospective amendment to s. 9(i)(vi) can apply the DTAA. However, question is left open

The Indo-Mauritius DTAA requires that the first enterprise in the first mentioned State has and habitually exercised in that State an authority to conclude contracts in the name of the enterprise unless his activities are limited to the purchase of goods or merchandise for the enterprise is a condition which is not satisfied. Therefore, this is not a case of B4U India being an agent with an independent status. The findings of the Supreme Court judgment in Morgan Stanley & Co. that there is no need for attribution of further profits to the permanent establishment of the foreign company where the transaction between the two is at arm’s length but this was only provided that the associate enterprise was remunerated at arm’s length basis taking into account all the risk taking functions of the multinational enterprise. Thus, assuming B4U India is a dependent agent of the assessee in India it has been remunerated at arm’s length price and, therefore, no profits can be attributed to the assessee

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: April 29, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 9, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2001-02
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 9(1)(vii)/ Article 13(4): Amount paid by Indian entities as “share of cost” of utilizing automated telecommunications system is not assessable as “fees for technical services” if there is not profit element in it

utilization of the Maersk Net Communication system was an automated software based communication system which did not require the assessee to render any technical services. It was merely a cost sharing arrangement between the assessee and its agents to efficiently conduct its shipping business. The Maersk Net used by the agents of the assessee entailed certain costs reimbursement to the assessee. It was part of the shipping business and could not be captured under any other provisions of the Income Tax Act except under DTAA

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — 2 Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: February 18, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 19, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 9(1)(i) & (vii): Concept of “source rule” vs. "residence rule" explained. Definition of expression "fees for technical services" in s. 9(1)(vii) explained with reference to "consultancy" services

The nature of service referred by the NRC, can be said with certainty would come within the ambit and sweep of the term ‘consultancy service’ and, therefore, it has been rightly held that the tax at source should have been deducted as the amount paid as fee could be taxable under the head ‘fee for technical service’. Once the tax is payable paid the grant of ‘No Objection Certificate’ was not legally permissible

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: February 13, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 16, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Service PE: Establishing subsidiary in other treaty country does not result in creating PE of a foreign holding company in the third country. As the employees of SRSIPL are not providing services to the assessee as if they were the employees of the assessee, there is no "service PE"

The AO is not right in (i) treating the assessee as having a Dependent Agency Permanent Establishment; (ii) laying down that the assessee has a business connection in India; (iii) treating SRSIPL as service PE and (iv) treating SRSIPL as Agency PE

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 29, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 2, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 9(1)(vii): Reimbursement of expenditure under cost-sharing agreement does not constitute "income" and there is no obligation to deduct TDS u/s 195

A perusal of the decision of the Supreme Court in Tejaji Farasram Kharawalla Limited (1967) 67 ITR 95 (SC) clearly shows that Supreme Court has categorically held that the reimbursement of the actual expenses would not be taxable in the hands of the person receiving the reimbursements

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 21, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 22, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 5(1) r.w. Art 16(1) of DTAA: Taxability of stock options allotted outside India by foreign co to NOR employee for services rendered in India considered

Without ascertaining how much of the SOTP is attributable to services rendered in India, the entire amount cannot be made taxable only because the money was received in India. Therefore, we are of the view that the assessee having residential status of ‘not ordinarily resident’, only that portion of the stock awards and SOTP attributable to services rendered in India can form part of total income for the assessment year

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 7, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 12, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 40(a)(i): Usance charges paid by the Assessee on import of raw material from foreign countries attracts tax in India u/s 5(2)(b) r.w.s. 9(1)(v)(b)

From reading the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation as reported in 314 ITR 309 (SC) and the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court (reported in 261 ITR 113) it is apparent that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has not reversed the decision in the case of CIT vs. Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation, 261 ITR 113 (supra) on the finding that the usance charges are not interest u/s 2(28A) except where an undertaking is engaged in the business of ship breaking in view of explanation (2) to Sec. 10(15)(iv)(c) inserted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2003 with retrospective effect

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 24, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 31, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11 & 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Though construction, installation and assembly activities are de facto in the nature of technical services, the consideration thereof will not be assessable under Article 12 but will only be assessable under Article 7 if an “Installation PE” is created under Article 5. As Article 5 is a specific provision for installation etc, it has to prevail over Article 12

On the question as to whether the said receipt for installation, commissioning or assembly etc activity can be assessed as “fees for technical services”, it is seen that the DTAA has a general provision in Article 12 for rendering of technical services and a specific provision in Article 5 for rendering of technical services in the nature of construction, installation or project or supervisory services in connection therewith. As there is an overlap between Article 5 and Article 12, the special provision (Article 5) has to prevail over the general provision (Article 12). What is the point of having a PE threshold time limit for construction, installation and assembly projects if such activities, whether cross the threshold time limit or not, are taxable in the source state anyway. If we are to proceed on the basis that the provisions of PE clause as also FTS clause must apply on the same activity, and even when the project fails PE test, the taxability must be held as FTS at least, not only the PE provisions will be rendered meaningless, but for gross versus net basis of taxation, it will also be contrary to the spirit of the UN Model Convention Commentary. Accordingly, though construction, installation and assembly activities are de facto in the nature of technical services, the consideration thereof will not be assessable under Article 12 but will only be assessable under Article 7 if an “Installation PE” is created

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 21, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 2, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Impact of Explanation 2 to s. 195(1) inserted by Finance Act, 2012 w.r.e.f. 01.04.1962 on law laid down in GE India Technology Centre 327 ITR 456 (SC) explained

The law laid down in GE India Technology Centre (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [2010] 327 ITR 456 (SC) that there is no obligation to deduct TDS u/s 195 if the sum is not chargeable to tax in India is not …

ACIT vs. Vilas N. Tamhankar (ITAT Mumbai) Read More »