Latest Expert Exchange Queries

GST Demo Service software link: https://ims.go2customer.com
Username: demouser Password: demopass
Get your inventory and invoicing software GST Ready from Binarysoft info@binarysoft.com
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) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: due date for vat payment :: cpt :: VAT Audit :: empanelment :: TDS :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: VAT RATES :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: form 3cd :: list of goods taxed at 4%
 
 
From the Courts »
 CIT vs. D. K. Garg (Delhi High Court)
 The Citizens Cooperative Society Ltd vs. ACIT (Supreme Court)
 Digipro Import & Export Pvt. Ltd vs. UOI (Delhi High Court)
  CIT vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd (Supreme Court)
  DCIT vs. Hita Land Private Limited (ITAT Mumbai)
 GTC Industries Limited vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) (Special Bench)
 Premlata Purshottam Paldiwal vs. CIT (Bombay High Court)
 CIT vs. Tata Power Solar Systems Ltd (Bombay High Court)
  ACIT vs. St. Mary’s Rubbers Private Ltd (ITAT Cochin)
 DCIT vs. Hita Land Private Limited (ITAT Mumbai)
  Liladhar T Khushlani vs. Commissioner of Customs (Gujarat High Court)

High court ruling could add to MNCs' tax burden
May, 23rd 2008

Another tax demand looms before multinational Companies (MNCs) that have no subsidiaries in India. In a landmark case, the Uttarakhand High Court has ruled that foreign Companies should include the surcharge on income tax while computing their liability in India. The ruling will apply even to those Companies from countries with which India has a double-tax avoidance pact or agreement.

Tax experts feel the ruling has reopened the debate on the effective tax liability of MNCs. An Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal (I-TAT) in Mumbai had accepted a plea by the Bank of America that the company would not have to add the surcharge to its tax liability. Under the Indian Income-Tax Act, a foreign corporate assessee pays a 40% rate of tax, plus a 10% surcharge.

The ruling, however, will not impact MNCs present in India through subsidiaries or joint ventures; they are treated at par with domestic Companies and are taxed at 30%. The high court decision comes in a case concerning the tax liability of an American non-resident company, Arthusa Offshore Company.

Tax disputes over offshore Companies have been in the limelight the past couple of years. The tax status of Morgan Stanleys BPO arm is now being heard as a special leave petition in the Supreme Court. Courts are also hearing arguments over the tax liability arising from the buyout of Hutch by Vodafone in India.

In the case before the Uttarakhand High Court, Arthusa had offered to pay tax at 60% of its income for the assessment year 1994-95, citing the Indo-US double-taxation agreement. But the I-T department says it should pay 72.5%. The company is likely to appeal to the Supreme Court within 120 days.

Reacting to the order, PricewaterhouseCoopers executive director Sanjiv Kumar Chaudhary told FE, The view of the I-TAT, New Delhi, was better and it settled the issue of the rate of tax for such Companies. Mukesh Butani, partner, BMR& Associates, agrees: Ordinarily, when the rate of tax is calculated under a double-tax avoidance agreement, it is all inclusive.

The rate was reduced to 65% by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) as well as by a tax tribunal. But the HC overturned their decisions, saying they had erred in law by holding that the assessee was not liable to pay tax beyond 60%. The order passed by the assessing officer holding that the assessee is liable to pay tax at the rate of 65% is upheld, the court ruled.

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2017 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Software Work Flow Workflow Software Software Automation Workflow automation Software Design Workflow Design Business Work Flow Workflow automation tools

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