Section 44BB(1) does not talk of `extraction of mineral oil’ simplicitor; it prefixes phrase `in connection with’ to the expression `extraction of mineral oil’, which shows that the section, by virtue of the phrase `in connection with’, is talking of something other than physical operations below the surface of the earth
ITAT Mumbai held in above case that that since there was no sale, discarding, demolition or destruction of an asset, no adjustment can be made to the Written Down Value (WDV) of the block of assets. Accordingly, the depreciation on goodwill and non-compete fees has to be allowed since these assets already formed part of the block of assets.
ITAT Delhi held that the perquisite value of rent free accommodation (RFA) provided by the employer being shared between expatriates should be on a proportionate allocable basis provided it is supported by appropriate evidence.
The back office operations and software development services carried out by an Indian subsidiary are held to be a fixed place permanent establishment of a Foreign Company. It has also been held that the contract entered into by the foreign company with its clients for providing certain IT-enabled services and then assigning or sub-contracting the same contract to Indian Subsidiary for execution can be said to constitute a business connection in India and profits attributed to the permanent establishment are determined based on the global profits in proportion to Indian assets to global assets.
Recently, the Bangalore bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in the case of Robert Bosch GmbH v. ACIT [2010-TII-149-ITAT-BANG-INTL] (the taxpayer) while rejecting the contention of the tax department held that the taxpayer is not expected to make royalty income with reference to the sale effected to it by an Indian company, when the know how for manufacture of the same is supplied by the taxpayer itself. Accordingly, such notional royalty income was not taxable within the provisions of Section 5(2) and Section 9(1)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) read with India-Germany tax treaty (the tax treaty).
The Bangalore tribunal has confirmed the inclusion of imputing interest on inter-company receivables as part of the transfer pricing assessment scrutiny and held that the arm’s length principle is equally applicable to interest on receivables under the India transfer pricing regulations.
Recently, the Mumbai bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in the held that mere provision of a dredger on dry lease for carrying out dredging activity in India does not result in the taxpayer having a Permanent Establishment (PE) as per the India-Netherlands tax treaty (tax treaty). Further, the Tribunal relied on OECD commentary which states that to form a PE, there should be existence of fixed place of business i.e. it must be establish a distinct place with certain degree of permanence. It usually means that persons who in one way or another are dependent on the enterprise, conduct the business of the enterprise in the state in which the place is situated.
Mumbai bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal held that the income from supply of information relating to various markets should be taxed as business profits under Article 7(3) of the India-Singapore tax treaty (tax treaty) and accordingly the expenses incurred for earning the income should be allowed as a deduction. Further, the Tribunal upheld the view that when the taxpayer chooses to be covered by provisions of an applicable tax treaty, the tax department cannot thrust provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) on the taxpayer unless those are more beneficial to the taxpayer.
The ITAT held that the relationship of the Taxpayers with their Indian subsidiary to whom the Taxpayers had sub contracted/ assigned provision of software development and call center services, resulted in a permanent establishment (PE) of the Taxpayers in India under the India-USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). The ITAT held that a PE was constituted on account of activities of the subsidiary which effectively resulted in the Taxpayers carrying on their business in India. The ITAT, subject to some adjustments, broadly upheld the approach adopted by the Indian Tax Authority of attributing profits to the PE by allocating the global profits based on a proportion of Indian assets to global assets. The ITAT also held that the conclusions reached in a Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) for a particular financial year could form the basis for the Tax Authority to reach a conclusion for other years, if there are no differences in facts for the years.
The ITAT held that the taxes paid on profits, whether on presumptive basis or on the basis of actual profits earned, represent application of income and are not allowed as deduction in computation of taxable profits. In terms of applicable provisions of the Indian Tax Laws (ITL), read with the applicable tax treaty, such taxes qualify for tax credit relief so as to avoid double taxation.
