under the India UK Tax Treaty (UK Treaty) reaffirmed some general principles relating to PE, the Tribunal further ruled that the Taxpayer does not have a PE under the basic rule or the agency rule. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the first appellate authority to determine if any part of the consideration could be taxed as royalty for use of equipment by the customer.
DCIT vs. Indo American Jewellery (ITAT Mumbai) :- Assessee’s TP study cannot be rejected lightly, “comparables” have to be comparable on all parameters, no incentive to shift profits offshore if tax rates there are higher.
The assessee purchased shares of an Indian company from Alcan Inc, Canada. Alcan filed an application u/s 197(1) for issue of a TDS certificate on the basis that the capital gains was Rs. 317.71 crores and tax at 10% was chargeable. The AO issued a certificate directing the assessee to withhold Rs. 40 crores on a provisional basis subject to regular assessment.
Airlines Rotables vs. JDIT (ITAT Mumbai). The assessee, a UK company, entered into an agreement with Jet Airways under which it agreed to provide Jet Airways with two segments of services, first, to carry out repairs and overhauling of aircraft components outside India and, second, to provide spares and components in the period the components were being repaired.
This Tax Alert summarizes a recent ruling of the Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) [2010- TII-41-ITAT-MUM-INTL] in the case of J Ray McDermott Eastern Hemisphere Ltd. (Taxpayer). The ITAT held that receipts pertaining to transportation and installation contract executed by the Taxpayer outside India cannot be taxed under the special provisions, which provide for taxation of certain income of a non-resident on presumptive basis, if the income is not chargeable to tax under the general provisions of the Indian Tax Law (ITL).
The assessee, an Indian company, entered into an agreement with a Chinese company for bauxite testing services in its laboratories (outside India) and for preparation of test reports. The assessee filed an application u/s 195(1) in which it argued that as the services were rendered outside India and the recipient did not have a permanent establishment in India,
The assessee, a tenant in a flat, sold tenancy rights for Rs. 30 lakhs and offered long-term capital gains on the basis that the said sum was the consideration. The AO took the view that as the market value adopted the Sub-Registrar was Rs. 33,11,200, the said market value had to be adopted as the consideration u/s 50C.
The assessee, a director and shareholder in a company engaged in share trading, returned income of Rs. 78,89,499 earned by her on transfer of shares as a “short-term capital gain”. The AO took the view that as there were voluminous transactions, the assessee was engaged in share trading and the income was assessable as “business income”. This was upheld by the CIT (A). On appeal, HELD dismissing the appeal:
The assessee, engaged in management consultancy, offered profits of Rs. 1.03 crores earned by it on sale of shares as long-term and short-term “capital gains” depending on the period of holding. The AO took the view that as the assessee was regularly dealing in shares throughout the year,
Manufacturing of a new product with a new technology at the same place after taking a fresh approval from SEZ authority does not amount to ‘splitting up or reconstruction’ of an existing business for the purpose of section 10A of the Act.
