The assessee has challenged the levy of penalty on three grounds. Firstly, the assessee has argued that the penalty proceedings have been initiated for concealing the particulars of income but the penalty has been imposed for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and, therefore, penalty is legally invalid. Reliance has placed on several judgments of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat, as mentioned in Para 4 earlier. We are unable to accept the arg
8. We find that there is no dispute about applicability of India Mauritius tax treaty on the facts of the present case, as also about the fundamental position that the provisions of the said treaty being beneficial to the assessee, the same will override the provisions of the Indian Income Tax Act. It is also not in dispute that the profits earned by the assessee from these contracts are business profits in nature and can only be brought to tax in India in the event of Mauritian company having been held to have a permanent establishment (PE) in India. The question that we must, therefore, address ourselves to
How can the sale prices to wholesale agents in two different countries be comparable, when the sale price to the final user in the one country is less than the sale price to the whole sale agent in another country, unless adjustment for the same has been considered; thus, the adjustments merely for volume offtake, credit period and credit risk, though material are not sufficient to make the sale price to AE in Thailand comparable with the sale to unrelated party in Vietnam
Payment made to Avaya International Sales Ltd., Ireland (ASIL) in respect of activation charges is a payment for buying a standard product/software. The payment made to ASIL can neither be said to be as ‘Royalty’ nor is covered under the provisions of ‘Fees for Technical Services’. The assessee is not liable to deduct tax at source on the payment made to ASIL as the income of ASIL is not liable to tax in India for the above payment.
The Ruling recognizes that a partnership firm, albeit a fiscally transparent entity, can be regarded as an entity liable to tax and hence eligible for benefits under the DTAA. The Tribunal has also observed that the fiction of deeming the PE to be a distinct and separate enterprise is for the limited purpose of preventing the manipulations that may arise in intra-group transactions. The Tribunal has also held that income from services rendered offshore for Indian projects are taxable in India in the hands of the PE even if they are not directly connected to the PE by interpreting the “direct or indirect profits attribution rule” in the India-UK DTAA in a wide manner.
Even in a case where proceedings for detection of concealment is going on during the assessment proceedings, the assessee surrenders some income and AO drops the proceedings of detection of concealment by accepting assessee’s surrender without making further examination or investigation regarding detection of concealment, it can be held that it is not a case of concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income; because in that situation, the AO does not record satisfaction as required u/s 271(l).
No income would arise to the American company in India in the course of deputing personnel to an Indian company who work under the control and supervision of the Indian company and carry out the work allotted to them by the Indian Company and the American company is reimbursed by the Indian company.
MSM Satellite Singapore Pte Ltd (SET), a tax resident of Singapore, is engaged in the business of acquiring television programs, motion pictures and sports events. It exhibits the same on its television channels from Singapore.
A recent ruling of the Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in the case of Hindalco Industries Ltd. (Taxpayer) [AIT2010-211-1TAT] under the provisions of the Indian Tax Act, 1961 (ITA),held that any person from whom a non resident is in receipt of any income can be treated as an agent of such non-resident.
In case of multiple sale and purchase of residential houses, the exemption cannot be calculated considering the aggregate of capital gain and aggregate of investment in the residential houses. The exemption will be available in relation to each set of sale and corresponding investment in the residential house and the combination which is beneficial to the assessee has to be allowed.
