The author argues that non-residents dread the ‘Force of Attraction’ rule in Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements because it permits the taxation of income arising outside the Contracting State. The ‘Force of Attraction’ rule can also create an anomalous situation where an assessee may be better off under the domestic law than under the tax-treaty law, says the author

The recent judgement of the Tribunal in ITO vs. Linklaters LLP has put the spotlight on the dreaded “Force of Attraction” principle.

In an earlier judgement in DCIT vs. Roxon OY 106 ITD 489 (Mum), the Tribunal explained that the basic philosophy underlying the ‘Force of Attraction’ rule is that when an enterprise sets up a PE in another country, it brings itself within the fiscal jurisdiction of that another country to such a degree that such another country can properly tax all profits that the enterprise derives from that country – whether through the PE or not. Therefore, under the ‘Force of Attraction’ rule, the mere existence of a PE in another country leads all profits which can be said to be derived from that another country being taxable in that another country.

Read more ›

The Finance Minister publicly expressed his anguish at the mounting number of frivolous cases filed by the department which are choking the Courts. The author, a public-spirited citizen ever eager to help the FM in such matters, puts on his thinking cap and formulates a 12-point agenda to cure the malaise. If implemented in real earnest, the mindless filing of departmental appeals will cease, assures the author. Is the FM listening?

The Hon’ble Finance Minister while addressing the Chief Commissioner’s Conference asked the CBDT to come out with a comprehensive proposal to address the issue of unwanted litigation with the tax payers. Federation has suggested proposals to reduce the tax litigation from time to time. “Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998” (1998) 233 ITR 36 (St.), which was successfully implemented by the Government was the suggestion of the Federation. Hon’ble Justice Mr. V. C. Daga, Judge, Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Techno Economic Services Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 255 E.L.T. 526 (Bom.) has taken judicial notice and directed the Chairman, Central Board of Excise and Revenue, Ministry of Finance to frame guide lines similar to Income tax matters. The Hon’ble Justice observed that “Let the Court to decide, attitude needs to be given go bye”. The Comptroller & Auditor General of India (CAG), in its recent report has revealed that a whopping sum of Rs 2.2 lakh crores has got locked up in appeals at various levels. The report stated that “absence of centralized database on appeals, non production of records during audit was a major constraint and concern”. Even the Federation in spite of making a sincere attempt could not succeed to get the number of tax appeals, references and Writ petitions pending before the various High courts.

Read more ›

In Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries 288 ITR 408 the Supreme Court held {on a misreading of s. 9 (1) (vii)} that in order to be chargeable to tax in the hands of the non-resident, fees for technical services had to be rendered in India as well as utilized in India. It held that if both conditions were not fulfilled, the fees for technical services was not chargeable to tax in India.

That the judgement was wrong was said so by the AAR in Worley Parsons Services Pty. Ltd (AAR) 312 ITR 273. It observed that Ishikawajima had wrongly referred to s. 9(1) (vii) (c) instead of s. 9 (1) (vii) (b) even though the two dealt with different situations. It also noted that the Supreme Court had stated that s. 9 (1)(vii) (c) requires that the services have to be rendered as well as utilized in India in order to be taxable in India even though the word “rendered” was not to be found even in the inapplicable clause (c). It also noted that the law was that “a decision not expressed and accompanied by reasons and not proceeded on a conscious consideration of issue cannot be deemed to be a law having binding effect as is contemplated under Art.141 of the Constitution. That which has escaped in the judgment is not the ratio decidendi” though it finally found a way to “distinguish” Ishikawajima.

Read more ›

The author is full of appreciation at the stellar roles played by the ITAT and the Bombay High Court in reducing arrears. He argues that the dwindling pendency of matters has rendered the concept of the NTT redundant. He makes out a strong case for increasing the role of the ITAT in judging income-tax disputes by making all non-appealable orders appealable to the ITAT

In the 61st year of Republic of India, the tax-payers of India will be getting speedy justice from the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which is considered as Mother Tribunal, within six months of the filing of an Appeal. As on 1-1-2010 the pendency before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is only 45,730 Appeals; sanctioned strength of Members is 102; hence, per member there are only 444 matters. In the year 1999, pendency was 3,00,597. In Mumbai, the pendency is only 14021 appeals and the sanctioned strength of 24 members which gives only 584 appeals per member (Source AIFTP Journal January, 2010 P. 53). The reduction in pendency is due to innovative procedure of the Income Tax Tribunal and the active support of the Tax Bar.

2. It is also heartening to know that pendency of tax appeals for final hearing before the Bombay High Court is only 1500. At present there is a permanent tax bench of the Bombay High Court to hear the tax matters. Bombay High Court is making a sincere attempt to group the matters and dispose of the same. Some of the matters, disposed of through this method, are dividend stripping, power of Settlement Commission, taxability of co-operative societies, depreciation on stock exchange card, option to claim depreciation, etc. This has helped to dispose of more than 3,000 appeals. One matters similarly clubbed and listed for disposal relates to disallowance of expenses incurred under section 14A of the Income Tax Act to earn exempted income under section 14A of the Act.

Read more ›

“Higher wisdom has to prevail over better wisdom” is the mantra judges mumble when they are forced to follow a precedent that they don’t quite agree with. However, judges do find ways of getting out of having to follow a judgement of a higher court. The latest salvo on this front is the Third Member judgement in Kanel Oil which shows that a High Court judgement, though superior in status to the Tribunal, may have to yield to the latter. In this case, the Bench was faced with a piquant situation. It had to decide whether an assessee liable to pay Minimum Alternate Tax (“MAT”) under section 115JA of the Act was also liable to pay advance tax under sections 234B and 234C for default in paying advance tax. The issue as such was covered against the assessee by the decision of the Special Bench in Ashima Syntex 117 ITD 1 but the assessee must have been very smug during the hearing because there was a subsequent judgement of the Bombay High Court in Snowcem India 313 ITR 170 which held, following the judgement of the Supreme Court in Kwality Biscuits 284 ITR 434, that assessees paying tax on book profits u/s 115JA were not liable to pay advance tax. The Judicial Member did oblige and decided in favour of the assessee by following the judgement of the Bombay High Court. However, the Accountant Member wrote a detailed dissenting judgement and followed the judgement of the Special Bench. This is how the matter landed up before the Third Member.
Read more ›