The Tribunal while upholding the order of the CIT(A) and after relying on the decision of the AAR in the case of Brown and Root Inc. held that since an installation project was not carried on for more than six months, as per Article 5(2)(k) of the tax treaty the taxpayer did not create PE in India.
Taxpayers will now have to procure a ‘new number’ for filing returns and making any communication with the Income Tax department. The unique Document identification number (DIN), on the lines of numbers like PAN and TAN, will be quoted on “every” inc
India has tightened norms for withdrawal of provident fund by overseas workers employed in the country, prohibiting them from taking back this money until they are 58 years old or are incapacitated. “An international worker may withdraw the full amo
The new premiums of country’s largest insurer Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) has breached the Rs 50,000-crore mark during April-October period this year, an increase of 66 per cent from the corresponding period last fiscal. In the first seven month
Recently, the Mumbai Tribunal held that the consideration received by the taxpayer for providing strategic consulting services cannot be considered as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) or Royalty within the provisions of the India-Switzerland tax treaty (See Note 1 at the bottom).
Mumbai bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal held that the supply of software does not amount to any transfer of copyright but only transfer of copyrighted article. Further, payment received for sale of copyrighted article does not amount to income from royalty within the meaning of the India-Israel tax treaty. Further, the Tribunal held that payment received from sale of software copy does not amount to income from royalty under the tax treaty.
Recently, the Mumbai bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal held that the payment received by the taxpayer company towards the sale of copyright article does not amount to royalty within the provisions of Article 12(3) of the India-USA tax treaty (tax treaty).
In this case Special Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dealt with the issue of allowability of losses on account of unmatured forward contracts in foreign exchange entered into by the taxpayer. The Special Bench while dismissing the contentions of the tax department held that the loss on unmatured forward contracts is in the nature of anticipated losses and not a contingent loss. The Special Bench observed that a binding obligation (although not fully ascertainable) arose against the taxpayer the moment it entered into forward foreign exchange contract. The Special Bench has relied on the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Woodward Governor of India [2009] 312 ITR 254 (SC) wherein the Supreme Court had held that exchange fluctuation loss arising on mark- to-market restatement of liability which is revenue in nature is an allowable loss. The Special Bench further observed that where profits were being taxed by the tax department in respect of such unmatured foreign exchange contracts then there was no reason to disallow the loss on such contracts.
Since the inception of Cenvat Credit Rules, there has been a debate on the application of Cenvat Credit Rules viz a viz trading activity. The Cenvat Credit Rules do not have any provision to govern a situation where common ‘inputs’/‘input services’ are used by an assessee engaged in providing output service/ manufacturing dutiable goods and, at the same time, also undertaking ‘trading activity’.
Recently, the Delhi bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dealt with the issue of taxability on sale of shares under India-Mauritius tax treaty (tax treaty). The Tribunal asked for either third party evidence or evidence by any government agency either situated in Mauritius or in India to be brought on record to substantiate taxpayer’s claim regarding holding board meetings in Mauritius. The Tribunal held that the documents placed on record needed examination regarding their authenticity and relevance, accordingly restored the case back to the Assessing Officer (AO) to decide the same afresh.
