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
 Karnataka High Court restrains Bengaluru-based Institute of Chartered Tax Practitioners India from enrolling candidates for its courses
 Attachment on Cash Credit of Assessee under GST Act: Delhi HC directs Bank to Comply Instructions to Vacate
 Income Tax Addition Made Towards Unsubstantiated Share Capital Is Eligible For Section 80-IC Deduction: Delhi High Court
 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

Payment made abroad taxable if deal has links with India
May, 28th 2010

The Income-tax department can tax even a payment made to a foreign entity outside India, if the transaction has a business connection within
the country, according to a verdict passed last week by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai.

In this case, the ITAT gave an order favouring the I-T departments decision to levy tax on $1 million (about Rs 4.5 crore) paid by an Indian company to a Chinese firm for services rendered in China.

In order to tax such payments, ITAT held, it is not necessary that the party has a business activity in India (territorial nexus). A division bench of ITAT, comprising Pramod Kumar and R S Padvekar, held that tax is payable in India on any income which is either sourced from India or which arises to a person domiciled in India.

The ITAT virtually dismissed the theory of territorial nexus, a concept of taxation by which tax is levied in the territory in which business activity took place.

The ITAT said that even if the business activity is not located in India, tax can be levied in India, the only prerequisite being a business connection.

In this case, the income being subject to tax is $I million paid by Indian company Ashapura Minechem to China Aluminium International Engineering Corp. The payment was made for services rendered by the Chinese company for bauxite testing. The final report of the bauxite testing was prepared by the Chinese company in China.

The Indian company claimed before the ITAT, that since the Chinese company did not have any business activity within India, it is not liable to pay tax in India either under the Indian Income-Tax Act or under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement.

The Indian company claimed before the ITAT that to be liable to pay tax in India, the Chinese company should have a territorial nexus in the country.

The latter did not have a permanent establishment in India, the Indian company pointed out. The concept of territorial nexus merely means that tax can be levied in the territory where the business activity had taken place. In this case, the payment was made outside India for service rendered outside India.

Therefore, going by the theory of territorial nexus, the Chinese company is not liable to pay tax in India. And hence the Indian company is not liable to withhold tax from the payment made to the Chinese company.

The ITAT negated the claim saying that India does not follow territorial taxation method in its income-tax. The ITAT said: It is thus fallacious to proceed on the basis that territorial nexus to a tax jurisdiction being sine qua non to taxability, in that jurisdiction is a normal international practise in all tax systems.

The ITAT drew support for its decision from the amendment made in the relevant I-T laws in the Finance Act 2010.

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2025 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting