NEWS

INTERNATIONAL

1. Australian Taxation Office publishes important guidance on cross-border tax measures

2. Singapore, Turkmenistan sign comprehensive tax treaty

3. Zimbabwe proposes amendments to thin capitalization rules.

4. Bulgarian mandatory transfer pricing documentation rules enacted

5. USA and Curacao negotiating country-by-country reporting exchange agreement.

6. Switzerland to exchange financial account information with 33 more countries for tax purposes

7. Israeli tax authorities issue updated transfer pricing declaration Form 1385

8. Australia publishes synthesized text of tax treaties with France, Finland, Malta as altered by MLI

9. MLI amendments to Singapore-Luxembourg tax treaty enter into effect

10. UAE country-by-country reporting rules published

OECD

11. Canada and Switzerland deposit their instruments of ratification for the Multilateral BEPS Convention

12. Guinea, Namibia and Honduras join the fight against tax evasion

13. Namibia joins the Inclusive Framework on BEPS.

14. Albania joins the Inclusive Framework on BEPS.

15. Saudi Arabia Joins OECD Multinational Tax Reporting Regime

INDIA

1. CBDT vide Circular No 22/2019 dated 30.08.2019 releases consolidated circulars/ clarifications in order to ease the compliance activities of startup companies.

2. CBDT constitutes Start-up Cell for redressal of grievances related to Start-ups.

3. CBDT clarifies that section 194N came into effect from 1st September, 2019; hence, TDS will not be deducted on cash withdrawal prior to 1st September, 2019.

4. Government withdraws enhanced surcharge on tax payable on transfer of certain assets.

5. Monetary limits for filing of appeals by Income Tax Department further enhanced by CBDT vide Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019.

6. India notifies amended DTAA with Spain.

7. Finmin notified the provisions of multilateral convention to implement tax treaty related measures to prevent base erosion and profit shifting along with India’s Position

8. CBDT has amended Rule 114 to facilitate interchangeability of PAN with Aadhaar.

9. Farm-in’ exp. incurred by Oil Exploration & Production Co’s is ‘intangible asset’; eligible for depreciation.

10. Quoting of ‘DIN’ in all departmental communications is mandatory w.e.f. October 1, 2019.

11. Time limit for processing of ITRs filed with refund claims up to AY 2017-18 extended till 31-12-2019.

DOMESTIC TAX CASE LAWS

SUPREME COURT

1. SLP dismissed against ruling that it was always open to Assessing Officer to scrutinize material supporting books of account or entries in books of account before accepting same for purpose of assessment, and, therefore, Assessing Officer was justified in accepting two entries relating to profits and disregarding other two entries concerning losses. [Mathur Marketing (P.) Ltd. v CIT [2019] 108 taxmann.com 118 (SC)]

2. Where High Court upheld Tribunal’s order holding that even though liability recorded in books of account by way of journal entries i.e. crediting amount of party to whom monies payable and debiting account of a party from whom monies were receivable in books of account was in contravention of provisions of section 269T, yet in that case penalty was not leviable for reason that transaction was bona fide and was not to evade taxes, SLP filed against said decision was to be granted. [Pr. CIT v Shakti Foundation [2019] 107 taxmann.com 460 (SC)]

3. Where High Court held that imposition of interest was justified under sections 234B and 234C, save and except on income which arose from retrospective operation of any statute, decision, etc., because in those type of cases, assessee was unable to know and assess his income and pay advance tax; SLP filed against said order of High Court was to be granted. [Pr. CIT v Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd. [2019] 107 taxmann.com 435 (SC)]

4. Where HC upheld Tribunal’s order holding that profit arising to assessee trust from sales of shares was to be treated as capital gain exempt from tax under section 10(38) having regard to fact that shares in question were settled by settler of trust who kept those shares for over two years, SLP filed against order of High Court was to be dismissed. [Pr. CIT v Vernan (P.) Trust [2019] 107 taxmann.com 433 (SC)]

5. Where High Court upheld Tribunal’s order holding that since assessee leased out its hotel to another concern by charging one per cent of total revenue and, thus, amount so received was taxable as business income, SLP filed against said order was to be dismissed. [CIT v Plaza Hotels (P.) Ltd. [2019] 107 taxmann.com 288 (SC)]

6. Where High Court by impugned order held that in absence of any addition made on basis of reasons recorded, no other addition could be made in course of reassessment proceedings, SLP filed against impugned order was to be granted. [DIT v Black & Veatch Prichard, Inc. [2019] 107 taxmann.com 290 (SC)]

7. According to section 292BB, if assessee had participated in proceedings, by way of legal fiction, notice under section 143(2) would be deemed to be valid even if there be infractions as detailed in said section. Scope of provision is to make service of notice having certain infirmities to be proper and valid if there was requisite participation on part of assessee. However, section does not save complete absence of notice. For section 292BB to apply, notice must have emanated from department. It is only infirmities in manner of service of notice that section seeks to cure. Section is not intended to cure complete absence of notice itself and thus, issue of notice under section 143(2) for completion of regular assessment is a statutory requirement as per provisions of Act and non-issuance thereof is not a curable defect. [CIT v Laxman Das Khandelwal [2019] 108 taxmann.com 183 (SC)]

HIGH COURT

1. Where assessee did not inherit anything from his father and, moreover, he had nothing to do with his father’s bank account, having regard to provisions of section 159, impugned assessment order passed under section 144, read with section 147 on ground that there were huge deposits in said account in relevant year prior to death of his father, was not sustainable. [C. Naveen Kumar v ITO [2019] 108 taxmann.com 219 (Madras)]

2. Where Tribunal concluded in case of persons against whom search was made that transaction of sale of property in question was taxable in hands of assessee, non-recording of reasons independently by Assessing Authority of searched person, could not be said to be fatal for initiating proceedings under section 158BD against assessee. [Smt. V. Vijayalakshmi v Dy. CIT [2019] 107 taxmann.com 450 (Madras)]

3. Commissioner is not authorized under section 12AA(3) to cancel registration of charitable trust retrospectively. Where assessee educational trust acquired a TV channel for educational training in journalism and mass communication as it was offering courses for graduation and post-graduation in mass communication and journalism, said investment in TV channel would be considered to be in consonance with objects of trust. [Indian Medical Trust v Pr. CIT [2019] 108 taxmann.com 93 (Rajasthan)]

4. Sec. 54F relief available on purchase of two adjacent flats if same was converted into single unit. [Pr. CIT v Abhijit Bhandari [2019] 108 taxmann.com 120 (Madras)]

5. Where assessee made contribution to State Government towards construction of a bridge which would be used by assessee for transportation of its goods, since bridge was not owned by assessee and assessee, by spending for construction of new bridge, had not acquired any property or right of permanent character, amount paid by assessee was to be treated as revenue expenditure. [CIT v Salgaocar Mining Industries (P.) Ltd. [2019] 108 taxmann.com 116 (Bombay)]

6. Additions made to assessee’s income as unexplained investment under section 69 on basis of statement of one SKL, being findings of fact based on agreement of purchase of land, it could not be said that authorities committed an error in relying upon statements of SKL. [Vijay Jain v CIT [2019] 107 taxmann.com 313 (Madhya Pradesh)]

7. Where assessee had purchased shares out of his own funds and held them for over seventeen months against locking period of one year before sale and in earlier years, Assessing Officer had accepted sale consideration from sale of shares to be capital gain, profit on sale of shares by assessee was to be treated as long term capital gain and not business income. [Pr. CIT v Hiren M. Shah [2019] 107 taxmann.com 182 (Bombay)]

8. Where demand against assessee under section 115-QA was an integral part of impugned assessment order, question regarding interpretation of section 115-QA could definitely have been gone into by Commissioner (Appeals). Hence, High Court declines to entertain writ petition under article 226 of Constitution against impugned demand raised by revenue by way of impugned assessment order under section 115-QA against assessee. However, assessee is to be granted an opportunity to file an appeal under section 246-A before Commissioner (Appeals) to challenge impugned assessment order only insofar as it creates a demand under section 115 QA. [Genpact India (P.) Ltd. v Dy. CIT [2019] 108 taxmann.com 340 (Delhi)]

9. Once an order has been passed under section 245D by Settlement Commission, assessment for year stands concluded and Assessing Officer thereafter has no jurisdiction to reopen assessment. [Komalkant Faikirchand Sharma v Dy. CIT [2019] 108 taxmann.com 50 (Gujarat)]

10. Once assessee had paid reassessed tax along with interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C after reassessment order was passed, assessee could claim waiver of such interest only if case of assessee could be brought within scope of notification issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes vide F. No. 400/234/95-IT(B), dated 23-5-1996. [Tushin T.Mehta v Chief CIT [2019] 108 taxmann.com 257 (Madras)]

11. Where petitioners-real estate developer deducted tax at source but failed to credit same to account of Central Government as per provisions of Chapter XVII-B within prescribed time, they could not escape from rigour of section 276B in absence of reasonable cause for said failure in terms of section 278AA. [Golden Gate Properties Ltd. v ITO-TDS [2019] 107 taxmann.com 302 (Karnataka)]

12. Assessee, engaged in business of manufacturing and exporting honey, was eligible to claim deduction under section 80-IB(11A) in relation to benefits received under Vishesh Krishi and Gram Udyog Yojana (VKGUY). [Pioneer Foods & Agro Industries v ITO [2019] 107 taxmann.com 364 (Bombay)]

13. Proviso to section 80-IA(4) does not require direct agreement between assessee and specified authority i.e. Central Government or State Government or Local Authority, for availing of benefit under section 80-IA. [CIT v Chettinad Lignite Transport Services (P.) Ltd. [2019] 107 taxmann.com 362 (Madras)]

14. Interest awarded in motor accident claim cases from date of Claim Petition till passing of award or in case of Appeal, till judgment of High Court in such Appeal, would not be exigible to tax, not being an income. On any interest paid to him post judgment, tax had to be collected as income from other sources. [Rupesh Rashmikant Shah v UOI [2019] 108 taxmann.com 181 (Bombay)]

15. Revenue having recovered approximately 38 per cent of disputed tax amount during pendency of appeals and no special circumstances pointed out to permit revenue to carry out full recoveries, revenue would not be permitted to carry out any further recoveries pending appeals. [Vodafone India Ltd. v CIT [2019] 107 taxmann.com 304 (Bombay)]

16. Where pursuant to search proceedings, assessee filed return declaring certain undisclosed income in respect of amount borrowed and, thereupon, he filed an application under section 245C wherein lower amount was declared as undisclosed income, in view of fact that assessee failed to prove that loan entries were genuine and his statement recorded in course of search proceedings was under coercion, he did not approach Settlement Commission with clean hands and, thus, impugned order passed under section 245D(1) allowing assessee’s application to be proceeded with, was to be set aside. [Pr. CIT v Om Prakash Jakhotia [2019] 107 taxmann.com 283 (Delhi)]

17. Where assessee filed writ petition challenging notice under section 153A and assessment order had been passed after filing of writ, since assessee had an alternate and efficacious remedy of filing appeal before CIT (Appeals), assessee should challenge said order before CIT (Appeals). [Rajendra v ITO [2019] 107 taxmann.com 178 (Karnataka)]

18. Nomination charges paid by assessee, engaged in quarrying granite blocks from mines, to State Government for allotment of land for quarrying of granite, could not be equated with terms ‘tax, duty cess or fees’ under section 43B(a). [Tamil Nadu Minerals Ltd. v Jt. CIT [2019] 107 taxmann.com 214 (Madras)]

19. Where a sum received by assessee-company to undertook a joint venture for development of IT Park was returned as deal could not be materialised, since assessee furnished complete statement of bank account reflecting debits and credits on account of money received and returned by it and issue about amount in question was dealt with by Assessing Officer during original scrutiny assessment, reopening notice treating said amount received by assessee as an unexplained investment was unjustified. [Best Cybercity (India) (P.) Ltd. v ITO [2019] 107 taxmann.com 215 (Delhi)]

20. Where a partner of assessee firm, during search, specifically admitted in statements recorded under section 132(4) that money receipt on account of gift from NRI was actually firm’s own undisclosed income routed back to other partner’s accounts through an alleged NRI gift, Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in making additions in hands of assessee firm in respect of such money. [Swathi Enterprises v Dy. CIT [2019] 107 taxmann.com 216 (Madras)]

21. Where assessee had filed a writ petition challenging an order of attachment passed by Tax Recovery Officer under section 222 attaching a property for failure to pay dues by one ‘N’ and stated that above property belonged to him, writ petition was rejected as ‘not maintainable’ and assessee was directed to file a claim before Tax Recovery Officer in terms of rule 11 of Second Schedule, who would investigate same in accordance with law. [Nilesh Popatlal Patel v TRO [2019] 107 taxmann.com 301 (Gujarat)]

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

1. Where assessee’s oil wells had come into existence after earth digging through rigs, assessee was held to have used its oil rigs, equipments and tools for bringing into existence the new oil well / eligible undertaking than having formed the same through the old plant and machinery, thus, there was no violation of the legislative condition of use of old machinery for formation of the undertaking /oil wells as mentioned under section 80-IB(2). [Asstt. CIT v Oil India Ltd. [2019] 108 taxmann.com 588 (Gauhati – Trib.)]

2. Interest income taxable under head ‘other sources’ if advancing of loans wasn’t part of business of assessee. [Global Entropolis (Vizag) (P.) Ltd. v Asstt. CIT [2019] 108 taxmann.com 220 (Bangalore – Trib.)]

3. Where assessee had claimed credit for tax deducted at source on interest income from bank, yet it had not declared corresponding interest income to tax, in view of fact that assessee was regularly following marcantile system of accounting, interest income in question was liable to be taxed in assessment year in question itself and, thus, impugned addition made by Assessing Officer was to be confirmed. [Dy. CIT v Delhi Tourism Transportation Corporation Ltd. [2019] 107 taxmann.com 306 (Delhi – Trib.)]

4. Where Commissioner (Appeals) passed an assessment order against assessee, however, assessee contended that impugned order being passed after 3 to 4 months from conclusion of hearing was null and void, in view of facts that contention of assessee about late passing of impugned order was unfounded and, further, monthly D.O. report had revealed that said order was passed in month of conclusion of final hearing itself, though dispatched late impugned assessment order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) was to be upheld. [Anil Kisanlal Marda v ITO [2019] 108 taxmann.com 55 (Pune – Trib.)]

5. No penalty if assessee was in bona fide belief that purchase of new property was within time limit. [ITO v Kantilal G. Kotecha [2019] 108 taxmann.com 119 (Mumbai – Trib.)]

6. Where assessee’s claim for set off of loss incurred on trading of castor oil against its other incomes was rejected, in view of fact that parties with whom business transactions of castor oil were entered into, were sister concerns and directly under influence of assessee, revenue authorities rightly concluded that transactions of purchase and sale of castor oil were sham and, thus, assessee’s claim for set off of loss incurred in those transactions could not be allowed. [RPK Warehousing (P.) Ltd. v ITO [2019] 108 taxmann.com 128 (Ahmedabad – Trib.)]

7. Where AO made addition to assessee’s income under section 68 in respect of amount deposited in bank, in view of fact that assessee had withdrawn those funds from his bank account four months ago for purchase of a property and, since, transaction relating to purchase of said property did not materialse, he re-deposited funds in question in his bank account, impugned addition was to be deleted. [Baljit Singh v ITO [2019] 108 taxmann.com 123 (Chandigarh – Trib.)]

8. Where assessee had purchased a land prior to date of transfer of his agricultural land, Commissioner was justified in disallowing exemption under section 54B. [Paras Chinubhai Jani v Pr. CIT [2019] 107 taxmann.com 217 (Ahmedabad – Trib.)]

9. Activity of selling various small properties acquired from sale of land couldn’t be treated as business activity. [Munish Singla v Addl. CIT [2019] 107 taxmann.com 176 (Chandigarh – Trib.)]

10. Where capital gain arises from sale of residential house, assessee is eligible to claim deduction under section 54 and that being case, restrictions imposed under proviso to section 54F (1) will not apply to assessee. [Asst. CIT v Jai Kumar Gupta (HUF) [2019] 107 taxmann.com 180 (Mumbai – Trib.)]

11. In terms of section 8 of Companies Act, 2013, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) activities are public charitable activities per se and, therefore, assessee-company formed with object of complying with requirement of corporate social responsibility of its parent company was eligible for registration under section 12AA. [Escorts Skill Development v CIT [2019] 108 taxmann.com 53 (Delhi – Trib.)]

12. In terms of AS-11, both gains and loss on account of exchange rate fluctuations on reporting date are to be accounted for while computing income chargeable to tax. [Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. v CIT [2019] 108 taxmann.com 41 (Mumbai – Trib.)]

13. Assessee, engaged in organising horse races, was not liable to deduct tax at source under section 194B while making payment of ‘stake money’ to owner of horses who won races organised by assessee. [Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd. v ACIT TDS [2019] 108 taxmann.com 91 (Mumbai – Trib.)]

14. In terms of section 249(4)(a), stipulation as to payment of tax ante filing of first appeal is only directory and not mandatory and, therefore, where appeal is filed without payment of tax but subsequently required amount of tax is paid, appeal shall be admitted on making payment of tax and taken up for hearing on merits. [Annapoorneshwari Investment v Dy. CIT [2019] 107 taxmann.com 417 (Bangalore – Trib.)]

15. Where assessee-company purchased Compulsory Convertible Debentures (CCDs) from its subsidiary company and sold them to its holding company which had resulted in short term capital loss, in view of fact that documentary evidences for purchase and sale of CCDs were not doubted by revenue and independent Chartered Accountant had determined fair market value of CCDs, transactions of sale of CCDs to related concern could not be construed as a colourable device to set off huge profits earned during year. [Essar Teleholdings Ltd. v Asstt. CIT [2019] 107 taxmann.com 360 (Mumbai – Trib.)]

16. Where an educational institution carries on activity of education primarily for educating persons, mere fact that it makes surplus cannot lead to conclusion that it ceases to exist solely for educational purposes. [Sanatam Dharam Educational Charitable Society v CIT (Exmp) [2019] 107 taxmann.com 365 (Amritsar – Trib.)]

17. Assessee, engaged in manufacturing of tea, is not eligible to claim deduction under section 80-IC(2) in respect of sale of black tea manufactured from green tea leaf purchased from outside market. [Bisseswarlall Mannalal & Sons v Dy. CIT [2019] 107 taxmann.com 359 (Kolkata – Trib.)]

18. Where assessee-car manufacturer made payment to its dealers in lieu of service coupons against which customers availed free service from dealers, TDS was to be deducted under section 194C. [Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v Dy. CIT [2019] 107 taxmann.com 134 (Mumbai – Trib.)]

19. Where assessee, engaged in construction and development of housing project, claimed deduction of interest paid on money borrowed for acquiring land as stock-in-trade, in terms of AS-16, interest cost so incurred would be required to be accumulated as part of project cost and same could not be allowed as deduction in year of incurrence itself. [ITO v Khatu Shyam Builders [2019] 107 taxmann.com 315 (Jaipur – Trib.)]

20. Where Applicant Company returned an amount received from a company towards supply of ceramic tiles on finding out that said company was not genuine and it was involved in money laundering activity, applicant could not be held to be a beneficial owner of amount in question. [Iscon Ceramic (P.) Ltd. v Initiating Officer [2019] 107 taxmann.com 420 (PBPTA – AT)]

21. If tax is deducted based on a bona fide estimate or if there is no observation that estimate is not honest or fair, deductor cannot be held to be assessee-in-default under section 201(1). [ITO v Mahatma Gandhi University [2019] 107 taxmann.com 186 (Cochin – Trib.)]

TRANSFER PRICING CASE LAWS

1. Apex has affirmed the decision taken by Hon’ble High Court and ITAT in favor of assessee and held that Where addition was made to income of the assessee on account of guarantee commission chargeable to its Associate Enterprises, benchmark fixed by Ld. TPO at 3 per cent was not correct. For computing ALP of guarantee commission, comparison cannot be made between guarantees issued by commercial banks as against a corporate guarantee issued by holding company for benefit of its AE. [CIT v Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [2019] 107 taxmann.com 445 (SC)]

2. CBDT’s Instruction No. 3/2003 dated 20-5-2003 had mandated that wherever aggregate value of international transaction exceeds Rs. 5 crores, case should be pricked up for scrutiny and reference under section 92CA be made to TPO. If there are more than one transaction with an AE or there are transactions with more than one associated enterprises, aggregate value of which exceeds Rs. 5 crores, transactions should be referred to TPO. [Pr. CIT v S.G. Asia Holdings (India) (P.) Ltd. [2019] 108 taxmann.com 213 (SC)]

3. Where details of international transactions entered into by assessee with its AEs were specifically made available, Tribunal was justified in directing Assessing Officer to restrict determination of ALP to transactions with AE only rather than on entire turnover of company. [CIT v. Phoenix Mecano (India) (P.) Ltd [2019] 108 taxmann.com 124 (Bombay-HC)]

4. Transfer pricing regulations do not apply to assessee a Tonnage Tax Company to extent of operations carried out through operating qualifying ships where income is taxed under Tonnage Tax Scheme. [Van Oord India (P.) Ltd. v Asstt. CIT [2019] 107 taxmann.com 303 (Mumbai – Trib.)]

5. Where assessee-advertising agency availed different intra-group services from its foreign AEs, ALP cannot be determined by TPO in respect of said services on adhoc/estimation basis without applying any method prescribed under section 92C(1). [Lintas India (P.) Ltd. v Dy. CIT [2019] 107 taxmann.com 426 (Mumbai – Trib.)]

6. Where Commissioner (Appeals) had not properly considered objection of assessee on a number of comparables and passed a non-speaking order in respect of exclusion and inclusion of such comparables, issue to be re-examined. [Comverse Network Systems India (P.) Ltd. v Asstt. CIT [2019] 107 taxmann.com 425 (Delhi – Trib.)]

INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CASE LAWS

1. Re-assessment notice issued on a Swiss Company on basis that investment by said company in shares of its subsidiary amounted to ‘income’ which had escaped assessment was to be set aside as share purchase was a ‘capital account’ transaction and could not be treated as income. [Nestle SA v Asstt. CIT [2019] 108 taxmann.com 237 (Delhi-HC)]

2. Where assessee, permanent establishment of Japanese company, was assessed as not being a domestic company and tax rate of 65 per cent was imposed on assessee, since clause 24(2) of DIAA agreement between Indian and Japan provides that a permanent establishment of an entity of one country in other country shall not be subjected to less favorable terms than an assessee carrying on similar activities in other country, assessee was liable to pay tax at same rate as Indian companies carrying on same activities were liable to for relevant assessment year. Ihe effect of the legal fiction envisaged in article 24(2) of the agreement is that for purpose of applying appropriate tax rate, permanent establishment of entity had to be regarded as a domestic company. Iherefore, HC set-aside IIAI’s order justifying levy of 65% tax rate on PE of Japanese Co. in India. [Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi Ltd. v CIT [2019] 108 taxmann.com 242 (Calcutta)]

Also, Read service tax payment due date.

3. Where assessee a US based company had entered into a global agreement with its group entities (affiliates), including its Indian subsidiary for provision of support activities in area of supply chain, human resources, strategic planning and marketing, finance and information systems and from nature and duration of contract it was evident that services had been utilized by Indian Company as well and concept of make available which requires that fruits of services should remain available to service recipients in some concrete shape such as technical knowledge, experience, skills etc. was met, cost reimbursements received by assessee towards providing support services to its group affiliates would be taxable as FIS both Income Iax Act and under tax treaty as well. [H. J. Heinz Co. v Asstt. DIT [2019] 108 taxmann.com 473 (Delhi – Trib.)]

4. Where assessee – Dutch company had entered into two agreements with its Indian subsidiary, namely, License Agreement granting rights to use software owned by it and Service Agreement to provide executive search services, since executive search fee earned by assessee in terms of Service Agreement was independent of royalty earned in terms of License Agreement, same was not taxable in India as FIS or royalty under article 12(5)(a) of DI [Spencer Stuart International BV v Dy. CIT (Intl. Tax.) [2019] 108 taxmann.com 47 (Mumbai – Trib.)]

5. Payments towards reimbursement of expenses towards travel and stay, video conferencing charges, insurance, and other miscellaneous expenses, received by assessee-Netherland based company from its Indian subsidiary, would not constitute FIS as per article 12 of India Netherland DI [Spencer Stuart International BV v Dy. CIT (Intl. Tax.) [2019] 108 taxmann.com 47 (Mumbai – Trib.)]

6. Where scientific services were rendered by two Swiss scientists to assessee-company, these were covered under Article 14 which deals with independent personal activities and no tax was required to be deducted at source from said payments. [Poddar Pigments Ltd. v Asstt. CIT [2019] 107 taxmann.com 422 (Delhi – Trib.)]

7. Where referral fees was received by foreign concern for introducing clients to assessee-Indian company, providing international real estate advisory and management services, since referral services were rendered entirely outside India, it would not fall within scope of ‘total income’ of said foreign concern as per section 5(2). Referral fees paid by assessee-Indian company for availing referral services which were rendered by foreign concern entirely in USA would constitute business profits of foreign company under Article 7 of India-USA DIAA; in absence of PE in India, it was not taxable in India. [Knight Frank (India) (P.) Ltd. v Asstt. CIT [2019] 107 taxmann.com 363 (Mumbai – Trib.)]

8. Where payment made to foreign buyer was not income within meaning of Article VII of DTAA to be taxable in India, question of deduction of tax at source did not arise and consequently no addition was warranted under section 40(a)(i). [3F Industries Ltd. v Asstt. CIT [2019] 108 taxmann.com 79 (Visakhapatnam – Trib.)]

********

Disclaimer: Above said information are taken from publically available resources and believed to be accurate.

Author Bio

More Under Income Tax

2 Comments

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *