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: due date for vat payment :: cpt :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: empanelment :: form 3cd :: VAT RATES :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: VAT Audit :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: TDS
 
 
General »
  Withdrawal of Legal Tender Character of the existing Bank Notes in the denominations of ₹ 500/- and ₹ 1000/- (Updated as on November 30, 2016)
 Cases for tax scrutiny will be selected by machines
 Time to revisit 1997 direct tax rates, says P Chidambaram
 Lok Sabha passes Bill to tax black money deposits post demonetisation
 Last day to pay property tax with old notes
 Income tax department asks IDS declarants to pay tax by 30 November
 Why PM Narendra Modi must beware of the breathtaking Arthakranti tax
 Japanese firms seek easing of restrictions on funding in India
 Tax on black money: How the cookie will crumble
 Income tax officials say raids on jewellers based on 'credible intelligence' proving fruitful
 Exchange window being misused, government forced to reduce limit to Rs 2000, says Arun Jaitley

Management | HC ruling a relief for foreign companies doing business in India
September, 15th 2008

In 2007, when the Supreme Court of India delivered its landmark ruling in the case, DIT v. Morgan Stanley and Co. [(2007) 292 ITR 416 (SC)], it was wholeheartedly welcomed by foreign companies doing business in India as it gave perceptible clarity to the taxability of such enterprises in India through permanent establishment (PE).

Now, foreign companies have another reason for celebration. The Bombay high court, in its recent ruling in the case of SET Satellite (Singapore) Pte Ltd v. DDIT (2008-TIOL-414-HC-MUM-IT), setting aside the earlier income-tax appellate tribunal (Itat) order, has applied the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the Morgan Stanley case to PEs other than service PEs (agency PE in this case). This vindicates the position that while the decision of the Supreme Court was in the context of a service PE, the principles were intended to apply to other types of PEs as well. Another important principle laid down is that the withdrawal of income by a taxpayer was permitted, even though offered earlier while claiming it was not taxable.

SET Satellite (Singapore), a foreign telecasting company based in Singapore and engaged in the business of broadcasting various television channels into India from there, appointed SET India (P) Ltd as an agent to carry on marketing activities in India for sale of advertisement air-time slots (ad airtime) to various advertisers in India on its behalf. The agent appointed by the appellant qualified as a dependent agent permanent establishment (Dape) and its services were remunerated on an arms length basis.

The appellant originally filed nil tax returns in India. Later, it revised the returns, offering its business income to tax in India while at the same time maintaining a position that, since it was remunerating the agent on arms length consideration, it had no further tax liability in India.

The commissioner of income tax (appeals), or CIT(A), upheld the above-mentioned contentions of the appellant in principle, while refusing to grant relief on the second contention on the ground that the appellant had itself offered its income to tax in India and, therefore, there was no reason to interfere with the order of the assessing officer. In an appeal filed before Itat, the tribunalrelying on the view expressed by the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development, International Fiscal Association and the Australian tax officeheld that the mere payment of arms length remuneration to a dependent agent did not extinguish the tax liability of the appellant in India. In fairness, this decision was issued by Itat before the Supreme Court decided the Morgan Stanley case. Consequently, an appeal was filed by the appellant before the high court against the Itat order.

The following issues were considered by the high court:

First, whether having taxed the agent on the fair value of activities in India, the same could be taxed all over again in the hands of the assessee as being income attributable to the deemed PE; and second, whether the assessee was debarred from contending in appeal that there was no income liable to tax as a matter of law solely on account of the fact that it had at some stage surrendered on ad hoc basis a sum for taxation as being liable to tax in India without prejudice to its claim that its income is not liable to tax in India. The appellant contended before the high court that as per Article 7(2) of the India-Singapore tax treaty, the profits attributable to the PE are profits which it might be expected to make if it were a distinct and separate enterprise engaged in the same or similar activities under the same or similar conditions and dealing wholly independently with the enterprise of which it is a PE. This corresponds to the arms length principle. Accordingly, it was submitted that since the dependent agent has been remunerated on arms length basis, it extinguishes the tax liability of the appellant in India.

The appellant also placed reliance on the Morgan Stanley case where the Supreme Court has accepted the principle that payment of arms length consideration to an associated enterprise, which also constituted a PE, would extinguish the tax liability of the foreign enterprise in India.

Relying on the Itat decision, the tax department contended that, for one, mere payment of arms length remuneration to a dependent agent did not extinguish the tax liability of Dape; consequently, further attribution of profits was required to be made to Dape depending on functions performed, assets used and risks assumed. And two, it held that the decision of the Supreme Court in the Morgan Stanley case did not have the effect of negating the principles adopted in the Itat order.
After considering circulars No. 23 and 742 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, Article 7 of the tax treaty and the decision of the Supreme Court in the Morgan Stanley case, the high court held that:

(a) If a foreign enterprise pays its Indian PE on arms length basis for its services, the Indian tax liability of the foreign enterprise on account of such PE is extinguished;

(b) Merely because tax on income was paid for some assessment years, it would not stop the assessee from contending that its income was not liable to tax.

The importance of this ruling is also because despite being delivered in the context of an enterprise having a PE under a double taxation treaty, it can possibly be applied to foreign enterprise taxable under the domestic law on the basis of a business connection in India in the form of an agent or a service providermore so when the long established treaty concepts such as dependent agent, independent agent, arms length pricing, associated enterprises and so on, now find place in the Income-tax Act itself.

Further, in this case, the taxpayer was found to have satisfied the domestic law threshold of taxability. Though it was a treaty protected case, the treaty was not invoked to reduce the taxability imposed by the domestic law. On the basis of settled law, it could be argued in a non-treaty case that a treaty, by itself, cannot create tax liability but can certainly mitigate the liability imposed by the domestic law on an enterprise. Therefore, once the higher threshold under domestic law is shown to have been crossed by the taxpayer, the lower threshold under the treaty can automatically be presumed to have been satisfied.

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - Our Vision

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