Recently, the Mumbai bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in the case of ACIT v. Monitor India Pvt. Ltd [2010-TII-138-ITAT-MUM-INTL] (Judgment date – 8 October 2010, Assessment Year 1999-2000).held that the taxpayer is under no obligation to approach the Assessing Officer and is entitled to remit monies abroad without deduction of tax at source if it is of the opinion that the remittance was wholly exempt from Indian taxes.
Recently, the Mumbai bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in the case of ADIT v. Solid Works Corporation [2010-TII-130-ITAT-MUM-INTL] Judgment date 1 April 2010, Assessment Year 2005-06) held that payment received by the taxpayer for sale of shrink wrapped software is not in the nature of royalty within the meaning of Article 12(3) of the India-USA tax treaty (tax treaty).
The matter is heard behind the back of the assessee or his advocate which, ultimately, leads to unsustainable order. It generates litigation either in the same Court by way of rectification application or in the higher Court. In order to avoid this situation, it is desirable to direct the appellant or parties to the appeal to amend cause title of the appeal memo in the event of change of address followed by amendment in column 10 of Form No.36; instead of permitting the parties to enter into the correspondence with the registry of the Tribunal.
Recently, the Mumbai Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in the case of Cheminova India Ltd Vs ACIT, Mumbai (ITA No. 4865/Mum/05) [13 ITAT INDIA 240 (Mum)]., accepted higher price paid to its Associated Enterprises (AEs) (as compared to unrelated parties) under Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) Method to be the arm’s length price (ALP) based on the economic and commercial justification.
In the case of Vikas Road Carriers Ltd. v. ITO [2010-TIOL-417-ITAT-MUM] the Mumbai Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (“the Tribunal”), ruled that, in light of the very typical facts of the case, no disallowance could be made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), for non-withholding of tax since the payments to the transporters were less than Rs. 20,000 each, and less than Rs. 50,000 in a year to any party and hence did not attract the withholding tax provisions of section 194C of the Act. The Tribunal relied very heavily on the fact that while the assessee had given details of expenses incurred, the revenue authorities were unable to dispute the assessee’s statement that the expenses in question did not exceed the limit of Rs. 20,000 per payment, and Rs. 50,000 per payee per year.
The Tribunal held that mere existence of subsidiary does not by itself constitute the subsidiary company a PE of the parent company. The main condition for constitution of PE is carrying on of business in India. However, no operations in respect of the manufacture and sale of parts and Completely Knocked Down (CKD) kits to subsidiary was carried out by the taxpayer in India.
Central Bank of India v. DCIT- In view of non-discrimination clause under the India-USA tax treaty, the non-resident should be given same treatment as given to resident’s taxpayers. Accordingly, the payment made to USA entities cannot be disallowed on account of non deduction of tax at source.
In a recent ruling, ITAT Mumbai held that no disallowance under section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is attracted in the case of a life insurance company. The Tribunal also held that disallowance of software expenses and of expenses incurred for increase in authorised share capital, is not attracted in view of the special provisions of section 44 of the Act read with the relevant rules in the First Schedule to the Act.
Article 26(3) of the India-USA DTAA protects the interest of non residents vis-a-vis residents. Article 26(3) provides that payment made to a non-resident will be deductible under the same conditions as if the payment were made to a resident. The exceptions provided in Article 26(3) are not applicable on facts. As per s. 40(a)(i), no disallowance can be made in respect of payments to residents on the ground of non-deduction of tax at source. Therefore, in view of Article 26(3), no disallowance can be made even in case of payments to non-residents even if the amount is found taxable in India in their hands. Herbal Life International 101 ITD 450 (Del) followed.
Recently in the case of Krung Thai Bank PCL v. Jt Director of Income-tax – International Taxation (ITA No. 3390/Mum/2009) (Mum), the Mumbai bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) held that the provisions of Section 11 5JB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) pertaining to Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) would come into play only when the tax payer is required to prepare its profit and loss account in accordance with the provisions of Part II and III of Schedule VI of the Companies Act. Further, since banking companies are not required to prepare their financial statements as per Schedule VI to the Companies Act in view of the exemption set out under proviso to Section 211 (2) of the Companies Act, the tribunal held that the provisions of Section 11 5JB of the Act cannot be applied to a banking company.
