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!
« Top Headlines »
Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs
 March 31 deadline is getting near. How to save income tax with tax loss harvesting?
 45-day MSME payment rule: Impact and details of Section 43B(h) explained
 Small savings schemes that offer tax benefits of up to Rs 1.5 lakh under section 80C
 RE-OPENING OF CORRECTION WINDOW FOR MAY 2024 CA EXAMINATIONS
 Powerful Upgrades, Tally 12+1 months renewal Plan and Connected Services for your growing Business - March 2024
 How innovative solutions can help fix the Sec 43B conundrum for MSMEs
 Income Tax dept asks many individuals to explain high value transactions of FY20-21 as Updated ITR deadline nears
 Release Notes for TallyPrime and TallyPrime Edit Log Release 4.1 | What s New!
 Deadline to file updated ITR FY20-21 ends on March 31: Details on additional tax
 4 tax-planning mistakes to avoid this season
 ITR 2024: Here are 8 ways by which senior citizens can save on taxes this year

MAT not for foreign firms having
August, 09th 2010

The purpose behind the introduction of provisions relating to MAT (Minimum Alternate Tax; Section 115JB) was to levy some tax on the Zero Tax Companies. The government felt a number of companies with huge profits were avoiding payment of income tax by adjusting their profits against allowances permitted under the Income-tax Act. To circumvent this strategy, MAT was introduced.

The MAT is charged on the book profits. It started with 7.5% on book profits, and has increased to 18% on book profits w.e.f. fiscal 2010-11. The provisions relating to MAT are proposed to be carried through in the New Direct Taxes Code.

The issue for consideration is if the provisions of MAT would apply to a foreign company. The Authority for Advance Ruling in an earlier case (234 ITR 335) held MAT is applicable to a foreign company. The argument was there were so many integral and important provisions in Section 115JA (relating to MAT), which cannot apply. This contention did not find favour with the authority. The authority said, MAT applies to every company and there was no reason to presume the Legislature did not intend the provisions to apply to a foreign company.

The considerations weighing for the ruling are as under:

there was no difficulty in preparing accounts in accordance with the Companies Act, 1956;
 
that the budget speech explains the purpose behind MAT (section 115JA);
 
that there is a non-obstante clause in section 115JA;
 
that there is no specific exclusion of foreign company under section 115JA;

that the definition of company given in section 2(17) of IT Act means a foreign company.
However, in a recent case of Timken Company, USA, in the judgment on July 23, the authority has taken a different view. It has been held the provisions of MAT are not designed to be applicable to a foreign company with no physical presence in India.

It was argued on behalf of the foreign company that many foreign companies claim treaty protection under section 90 of the Act and offer their different streams of income like royalty, fees for technical services, dividend, interest etc. for tax at concessional rates (compared to rules under the Act). In some cases, foreign companies also claim exemption from tax in India on the basis of DTAA. Thus, if the proposition that MAT applies to foreign companies is accepted, then in every case, despite treaty protection, tax under MAT will be payable. Section 90 of the Income-tax Act which gives treaty protection to foreign companies cannot be interpreted to be overridden by MAT provisions. If that is not accepted then the treaty protection will be an absurdity.

The Authority concluded that provisions of MAT will not apply to foreign companies by observing as under:

The applicants contention is that if due consideration is given to the context in which the word company has been used, it can be seen that what is meant is an Indian company. At no place, does the context in which the word Company has been used in the section give an indication it would include a foreign company. Various reasons given above are supported by CBDT circulars, Finance Ministers speeches, notes to clause and memorandum attached to the Finance Bill. Hence the definition of Company in section 2(17) in the context of section 115JB should be read to exclude foreign company.

The Timken Companys case (supra) is a landmark judgement setting at rest the controversy MAT is not applicable to a foreign company with no presence or PE in India.

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