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
 
Tally On Cloud Tally on Cloud: Ready for the Daily Backup Requirement
Keep your Tally books accessible from anywhere while supporting your Rule 46(8) obligations. With daily backups configured on servers physically located in India, Tally on Cloud helps you maintain the backup arrangement required for electronic books of account under the Income-tax Rules, 2026. Move your Tally to the cloud with confidence.
Open DEMAT Account with in 24 Hrs and start investing now!
« Top Headlines »
Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs
 Income Tax Rules 2026: CBDT Introduces Revised Form 161 for Penalty Waiver, Clarifies Misreporting Categories and Taxpayer Relief
 ITR Filing and Income Tax Audit Deadline Extended: 5 Critical Things Taxpayers Must Know
 Filing Belated ITR for AY 2026-27? Know Which Losses You Can Carry Forward and Which You May Lose
 CBDT Extends Tax Audit Report Deadline to October 21, ITR Filing Last Date to November 21 for AY 2026-27
 CBDT Extends AY 2026-27 ITR Filing Deadline for Tax-Audit Cases: New Dates and Key Compliance Details
 Foreign Assets Missing From Your ITR? Income Tax Department Opens One-Time Disclosure Window
 Tax Audit Deadline September 30: Why AIS, TDS and GST Figures May Not Match Your ITR and What Taxpayers Should Do
 Tax audit deadline September 30: Common mistakes taxpayers should avoid
 Your ITR says ‘verified’, but the refund hasn’t arrived? 5 reasons why your money could be stuck
 Missed the ITR Deadline but TDS Refund Is Due? Here’s How You Can Still Claim Your Money
 ITAT Cuts ?4.85 Lakh Penalty After ?14.02 Lakh Interest Income Was Missed in ITR

Higher rate of tax on foreign companies
October, 10th 2006
The various tax treaties which India has made with a large number of countries invariably contain a provision of non-discrimination against foreign enterprises. The non-discrimination clause in effect provides that a foreign enterprise in India will not be subjected to any taxation which is more burdensome than the taxation to which Indian enterprises are subjected to under similar conditions. The aforesaid non-discrimination clause is on the lines of an article contained in the UN Model of tax treaties, which reads as under: Nationals of a Contracting State shall not be subjected in the other Contracting State to any taxation or any requirement connected therewith which is other or more burdensome than the taxation and connected requirements to which nations of that other State in the same circumstances are or may be subjected. This provision shall, notwithstanding the provisions of article 1, also apply to persons who are not residents of one or both of the Contracting States. Despite the above internationally accepted position it is surprising that Explanation to Section 90 of the Income-tax Act provides that the charge of tax in respect of a foreign company at a rate higher than the rate at which a domestic company is chargeable, shall not be regarded as less favourable charge of levy of tax in respect of such foreign company. The true effect of the aforesaid explanation is that a higher rate of tax can be imposed on a foreign company in India compared to the tax chargeable from an Indian company. It has been pointed out in these columns earlier also that the aforesaid explanation to Section 90 will have a far reaching implication on foreign companies operating in India because by operation of law a higher rate of tax will not be regarded as a discrimination against the foreign companies. A recent case of Chohung Bank vs Deputy Director of Income-tax (2006) 102 ITD 45 is a glaring example of the above mentioned provision of law. In the said case, a banking company based in Korea had a branch in India. The said branch (called assessee-company) was involved in normal banking activities including financing of foreign trade and foreign exchange transactions. The assessee claimed that the tax rate as applicable to Indian companies carrying on similar business should be applied in its case instead of the tax rate applicable to non-resident companies and in this regard relied upon article 26 of the Agreement for Avoidance of Double Taxation between India and Korea. Accordingly, the foreign banks income was taxed at the rate of 48% instead of at the rate applicable to a domestic company i.e. 35% as claimed by the assessee company. The ITAT Mumbai after considering Section 90 of the Income-tax Act and the non-discrimination clause in the Tax Treaty with Korea, ultimately held that the provision of non-discrimination has nothing to do with the rate of tax. The tribunal further observed that a tax treaty does not prevail over the Finance Act; hence, over the tax rates. The tribunal took all the pains to justify their decision that if a foreign company is made to pay tax at higher rate as compared to a domestic company, this does not amount to any less favourable discrimination against the foreign company. This may be a brilliant argument, but is certainly devoid of justice. If foreign enterprises are discriminated against by imposing higher rate of tax, it is certainly a question mark on India's commitment to the tax treaties made with other sovereign States. H P Aggarwal
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2026 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting