Need Tally
for Clients?

Contact Us! Here

  Tally Auditor

License (Renewal)
  Tally Gold

License Renewal

  Tally Silver

License Renewal
  Tally Silver

New Licence
  Tally Gold

New Licence
 
Open DEMAT Account with in 24 Hrs and start investing now!
« From the Courts »
Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs
 Inordinate delay in income tax appeal hearings
 Income Tax leviable on Tuition Fee in the Year of Rendering of Services: ITAT
 Supreme Court invoked its power under Article 142 of Constitution to validate notices issued under section 148 as notices issued under section 148A. However the same shall be subject to amended provisions of section 149.
 ITAT refuses to stay tax demand on former owner of Raw Pressery brand
 Bombay HC sets aside rejection of refund claims by GST authorities
 [Income Tax Act] Faceless Assessment Scheme does not take away right to personal hearing: Delhi High Court
 Rajasthan High Court directs GST Authority to Unblock Input Tax Credit availed in Electronic Credit Ledger
 Sebi-taxman fight over service tax dues reaches Supreme Court
 Delhi High Court Seeks Status Report from Centre for Appointments of Chairperson & Members in Adjudicating Authority Under PMLA
 Delhi High Court allows Income Tax Exemption to Charitable Society running Printing Press and uses Profit so generated for Charitable Purposes
 ITAT accepts Lease Income as Business Income as Business Investments were mostly in nature of Properties

Foreign companies need not be taxed: High Court
May, 01st 2010

In a decision that could have a bearing on all cross-border transactions, including those related to the Indian Premier League teams that are currently being probed by tax authorities, the Delhi High Court has ruled that any liability to withhold tax would arise only if payments to overseas entities is liable to be taxed in India.

The decision assumes significance in the background of a Karnataka High Court ruling last year that tax should be withheld from all payments made to overseas entities.

The Delhi High courts decision was given in the case of Maharishi Housing Development Finance Corporation. The ruling was on whether it should have deducted tax while making payment to an overseas entity. Maharishi did not deduct the tax, but the tax officer said that it should have. The tax department disallowed the expenditure under Section 40 a (ia) of Income-Tax Act. The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) also decided in favour of the tax officer.

The Delhi High Court ruling differed from a Karnataka High Court judgement in the case of Samsung Electronics last October, in which the High Court held that tax has to be deducted in India from all payments made to overseas entities.

Its rationale was that since the taxpayer is not an expert in deciding whether a particular income is liable to be taxed in India, it would be wiser to allow the tax officer to do that.

In the case of Maharishi, the Delhi HC remanded the matter to ITAT to decide whether its payment to the overseas entity is liable to tax in India. The Delhi High Courts decision is the latest in a long line of decisions on the same issue. Apart from the Delhi High Court, the Karnataka High Court and a full bench of Chennai tax tribunal had also given decisions on similar issues.

In a note summarising the order, KPMG said: The Delhi High Court, after following its own decision in the case of Van Oord ACZ India, reaffirmed that the question of withholding tax arises only if payment made to non-resident is chargeable to tax in India.

Vispi T Patel of law firm Vispi T Patel & Associates said: If the payment to the non-resident is not chargeable to tax in India, the question of withholding tax does not arise. The full bench of Chennai ITAT too held a similar view in the case of Prasad Productions.

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2024 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting