Income Tax : The guide explains how residents can avoid double taxation through DTAA benefits, Foreign Tax Credit, and Section 91 relief, outli...
Income Tax : The article explains how India has broadened Permanent Establishment and Business Connection concepts after BEPS reforms. It highl...
Income Tax : xplains how the functions performed by an Indian subsidiary are tested under Article 5 to determine whether a foreign company form...
Income Tax : The analysis explains how activities of a liaison office can trigger PE exposure despite regulatory approval. Taxability depends o...
Income Tax : Highlights how the Court ruled that consistent operational control and strategic oversight in India can establish a Fixed Place PE...
Income Tax : The OECD Committee on Fiscal Affairs has proposed important and far-reaching changes to the Commentary on Article 5 (Permanent Est...
Income Tax : A host of companies from Mumbai, said to be 367 in number and mostly multinational in nature, have moved the recently set up dispu...
Income Tax : A Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement was signed between India and Tajikistan today, i.e. 20th November, 2008. The Agreement was s...
Income Tax : The Bombay High Court held that only the royalty retained after an APA adjustment is taxable, applying the doctrine of real income...
Income Tax : The Bombay High Court held that royalty refunded by a foreign company to its Indian subsidiary under an Advance Pricing Agreement ...
Income Tax : The Delhi ITAT ruled that no installation or supervisory PE existed in India as the activities did not exceed the 120-day threshol...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that offshore supply receipts could not be taxed under Section 44BB where the Revenue failed to prove the existe...
Income Tax : Bangalore ITAT ruled that only solar days and not cumulative man-days should be considered while determining the existence of a Pe...
Income Tax : CBDT notifies Section 206C (1G) of Income Tax Act shall not apply to a person (being a buyer) who is a non-resident & who does not...
Income Tax : Public Consultation on the proposal for amendment of Rules for Profit attribution to Permanent (PE) Establishment invited by CBDT....
6. Admittedly, the assessee in these appeals are non-resident companies having no permanent establishment in India. It is also not disputed that after the contract received by the assessee companies in the year 1983 and before, fresh contract was given to them by the ONGC only in the year 1999. Learned counsel for the appellant (revenue) argued that since the respondent / assessee
This alert summarizes a recent ruling of the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) [2009-TIOL-12-ARA–IT] in the case of K.T. Corporation (Applicant) on the issue of whether a Liaison Office (LO), acting as a communication channel, will constitute a Permanent Establishment (PE) of the Applicant under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Korea (Tax Treaty). Considering the facts of the case
3. The applicant contends that the services under various contracts except contract no. 5 cannot be brought within the sweep of `royalties’ as defined in Art. XII.3 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (hereinafter referred to as `DTAA’ or `Treaty’), that there was no permanent establishment in India except in relation to Contract no.6 and that royalty income in respect of the contract no. 5
9. We have considered the rival submissions and also perused the relevant material on record. It is observed that a similar issue was involved in assessee’s own case for the earlier years i.e. AY 1991-92, 92-93 & 93-94 and the Tribunal vide its consolidated order dated 12.6.1998 has decided the same in favour of the assessee for the said years following the decision of Special Bench of ITAT in the case of P.A.V.L. Kulandayan Chettiar
CIT VS. SIEMENS AG (BOMBAY HIGH COURT) If the Tribunal has answered an issue and that has not been challenged by the revenue, it will not be open to the revenue to raise the said issue again in respect of the same assessee; The judgement of the Supreme Court in Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries vs. DIT 288 ITR 408 (SC) has been overcome by the Explanation to s. 9 inserted by the FA 2007 which provides that income from royalty paid by a resident would be deemed to accrue in India even if the recipient has no PE
A Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement was signed between India and Tajikistan today, i.e. 20th November, 2008. The Agreement was signed by Mr. Narendra Bahadur Singh,Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes on behalf of Government of India and by Mr. Norinov Jamshed Nurmahmadovich, Deputy Minister of Finance of the Republic of Tajikistan on behalf of the Government of Tajikistan.
SET Satellite (Singapore) vs. DDIT (Bombay High Court) – Where the assessee had a ‘Dependent Agency Permanent Establishment’ (‘DAPE’) (“SET India”) in India and it was admitted by the Revenue that the assessee had paid ‘arms length’ remuneration to the said dependent agent but the Tribunal still held (106 ITD 75) that notwithstanding the taxability of the said dependent agent in accordance with domestic law, the assessee had to be assessed in respect of the profits attributable to the said DAPE, held, reversing the judgment of the Tribunal that
Rolls Royce Plc vs. DDIT (ITAT Delhi) – jurisdiction u/s 147 can be exercised even on the basis of a prima facie opinion (ii) On facts, the wholly owned subsidiary constituted a ‘business connection’ as well as a ‘permanent establishment’ (iii) the total profits of the enterprise have to be apportioned on the basis of various factors affecting accrual of income. First, the economically significant activities and responsibilities (in the context of activities and responsibilities undertaken by the enterprise as a whole) undertaken through the PE have to be identified through a functional and factual analysis.
The author has made a critical analysis of the recent decision of the Kolkota Bench of the ITAT in Van Oord Atlanta B.V. 112 TTJ 229 and identified the important principles of law emerging therefrom. 1. 1. Factual Synopsis of the case 1.1 Van Oord Atlanta B.V. (‘Assessee’) a company incorporated in Netherlands and a resident of that country was accordingly treated as eligible to benefits of ‘DTAA’.
