Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
Popular Search: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: form 3cd :: VAT Audit :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: VAT RATES :: due date for vat payment :: cpt :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: TDS :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: empanelment
« News Headlines »
 Here's how to calculate tax payable on your capital gains
 Income Tax calculations for the financial year 2016-17
 CPE Events 17 October - 22 October 2016
 High Court raps I-T Department for wrong tax demand
  CBDT signs 5 advance pricing pacts with Indian taxpayers
 Finance ministry warns tax officials of action against GST protest
 Big changes for small units under GST
 Parliament’s winter session to begin on November 16 to expedite GST rollout
 Income-tax (27th Amendment) Rules, 2016 - 92/2016
 Announcement - Clarifications in Respect of MEF 2016-17
 Non-taxing GST apps to make filing income tax return less painful

Reaching a tax deal
November, 05th 2007
When a demand is raised on completion of an assessment, a tax-payer is obliged to make payment within 30 days of the service of the notice.
While the department insists on payment of demand raised by it even if taxpayer does not accept the assessment and files an appeal against it, a tax-payer is generally reluctant to pay any disputed demand until the matter is decided by appellate authorities.
Because the government is keen to collect even the disputed taxes, the Income Tax Act has been so carved that a taxpayer is obligated to pay even a disputed demand unless he gets a stay from the department or higher authorities.
Experience of foreign enterprises in India shows that the discretion to grant stay of demand is not judiciously exercised. Those who are in charge of the collection of taxes are more influenced by their targets for collection rather than by judicious considerations.
Therefore, some countries have initiated the move to amend the double taxation avoidance agreements to the effect that foreign companies may be allowed to provide a bank guarantee against their disputed taxes.
In view of the above problem, an understanding has already been reached between the US and India, as well as between UK and India that a disputed tax demand against US or UK companies will remain suspended if a bank guarantee is furnished by the assessee.
It is, however, to be noted that the suspension of demand as aforesaid does not relieve the tax payer from payment of interest .Therefore, if the demand is ultimately found payable by the taxpayer, payment will have to be made along with interest up to the date of payment.
The procedure for suspending the demand will be provided in the relevant Tax Treaty. The treaties contain a provision for redressal of grievances, which is popularly known as Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP).Therefore, if a USA based entity desires the suspension of tax demand, it has to invoke the MAP procedure as provided in the Indo-US Tax Treaty.
It has recently been reported (Business Standard, October 31) that the collection of outstanding taxes in case of a US resident can be kept in abeyance under the MAP of the tax treaty. It appears that this facility is not available to Indian tax entities.
Therefore, on representation from Indian resident entities, the government has decided to extend the facility of suspension of disputed tax demand both for US residents as well as for Indian residents. The clarification issued provides as under:
In order to avoid hardship to Indian resident taxpayers especially in cases involving transfer pricing, where the Indian resident entity is liable to pay taxes on such income which have been charged to tax in the hands of the associated entity in the US, it has been decided to extend the applicability of the MoU to such Indian entities during the pendency of the MAP.
This clarification will be helpful as there were instances where the MoU benefit was sought to be denied in India in respect of the demands raised as a result of transfer pricing adjustments made in the hands of the Indian entity for which the US resident invoked the MAP option.
This is undoubtedly a welcome move by the competent authorities in India and the US. It is strongly felt that suspension of disputed demand against an adequate bank guarantee should be allowed as a general principle in all cases of foreign enterprises.

H P Aggarwal
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Outsourcing Test Solutions Software Testing Software Bug Testing Software Issues Tracking Software Issue Fix Software Code Optimization Database Design Optimization

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions