The decision of tribunal reaffirms the position that after amendment to section 9 of the Act, what is required is that, the services should be utilized in India in order to be taxable in India irrespective of the situs of rendering of the services.
The Tribunal has held that a simple maintenance of stock of goods by the foreign enterprise at the customer?s location for standby use may not constitute a PE, while keeping the issue open with regard to royalty on use of equipment.
The Tribunal concluded that the sale of rig was precursor to the process of cessation of PE, termination of the contract and movement of equipment in international waters. The rig was situated in India when the process of sale had commenced and substantially completed. The deferral of receipt of part sale consideration and postponement of handing over of the rig was immaterial, so far as tax liability in connection with the sale of PE or its assets are concerned.
Till AY 1996-97 unabsorbed depreciation could be set off against income under any head. From AY 1997-98 to 2001-2002 unabsorbed depreciation could be set off only against business income. From AY 2002-2003 onwards unabsorbed depreciation could again be set off against income under any head of income.
In Topman Exports vs. ITO 318 ITR 87 (Mum)(SB)(AT) the Special Bench held that for purposes of s. 80HHC only the “profit” on sale of DEPB entitlements (i.e. the sale value less the face value) was required to be considered. In an appeal by the department, this judgement has been reversed by the Bombay High Court today, 29th June 2010.
Following HCL Comnet 305 ITR 409 (SC), the Tribunal took the view vide order dated 17.3.2009 that provision for bad debts debited to the P&L A/c could not be added to the “book profits” u/s 115JA. To supercede HCL Comnet, clause (g) was inserted in the Explanation to s. 115JA by the F. A. 2009 w.r.e.f 1.4.1998. The amendment received the assent of the President on 19.8.2009, after the order of the Tribunal was passed. The department filed a MA contending that in view of the said retrospective amendment, there was a “mistake apparent from the record”. HELD dismissing the application:
The assessee, a Mauritian tax resident, owned a jack-up rig used for drilling of mineral oil. The rig was given on charter basis to an Indian company which in turn leased it to ONGC for operations in Indian territorial waters. On 24.4.1997, the assessee entered into an agreement with Foramer SA, France, to sell the jack-up rig. On 15.9.1997,
In a recent ruling Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Ashapura Minichem Ltd. (ITAT) [[2010] 5 taxmann 57 (Mum.-ITAT)] on the issue of taxability of payments made by the Taxpayer for services rendered outside India, under the provisions of the Indian Tax Laws (ITL) as well as the India-China Tax Treaty (Tax Treaty) held that such payments are taxable in India both under the ITL as well as the Tax Treaty and the Taxpayer is liable to withhold taxes (WHT) from such payments.
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.
