In a recent decision Special Bench (SB) of the Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Datacraft India Ltd. (Taxpayer) [ITA No.7462 & 754/ Mum/ 2007]on the issue of whether routers and switches can be classified as computer entitled to depreciation at 60% or have to be classified as general plant and machinery entitled to depreciation at 25%, under the provisions of the Indian Tax Laws (ITL) held that the definition of computer should not be restricted to the central processing unit (CPU) of computer
CIT vs. Kalpataru Colours and Chemicals (Bombay High Court)- S. 28 (iiid) provides that “any profit on the transfer” of the DEPB shall be business profits. Under Explanation (baa) to s. 80HHC, 90% of “the sum referred to in s. 28(iiid)” has to be reduced from the business profits. Under the third Proviso to s. 80HHC (3), in the case of an assessee having an export turnover exceeding Rs. 10 crores, the profits referred to in s. 80HHC (3) can be increased by 90% of “the sum referred to in s. 28 (iiid)” only if two conditions are satisfied.
The assessee, a fishing company, obtained two fishing vessels on charter from a foreign company based in Hong-Kong. The charter fee of $ 600,000 was payable from the earning from the sale of fish and for that purpose 85% of the gross earnings from the sale of fish was to be paid to the foreign company. The trawlers were delivered to the assessee at Chennai Port.
The assessee credited its P&L A/c with an amount of Rs. 149.77 crores being the profit on sale of assets to its wholly owned subsidiary. As the said profits were not chargeable to tax u/s 47(iv), the assessee took the view that the same had also to be reduced from the “book profits” u/s 115JB. The Special Bench had to consider whether exempt income could be excluded from the computation of “book profits” u/s 115JB. HELD deciding against the assessee:
Whether the liability has been deferred or not has to be considered not from the simplistic point of the term ‘defer’ but in context of the incentive scheme for deferral, as is evident from the circular issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes. The subject matter of Circular no.496 dated 25th September, 1987 is Sales Tax Deferral Scheme and applicability of provisions of section 43B of the Act.
Depending on the facts, the activity of storage and supply of goods in India by a foreign enterprise may need examination to determine impact of the above ruling. For the purpose of the computation of the profit, a PE should be regarded as separate and distinct enterprise wholly independent of the non-resident foreign company.
The AAR upheld the contention that a transfer for the purpose of capital gain should be a legal transfer. The transfer of rights and obligations even if not binding on the third party are still binding on the parties to the agreement therefore consideration against the same could be treated as business profit. In absence of permanent establishment in India, consideration for assignment of supply agreement can not be taxable in India.
Under the specific facts of the case the research activities were held to be in the nature of core business activities and not preparatory and auxiliary services so as to be covered in the exclusionary Article for Fixed Place PE.
There was no transfer of copyright or the right to use the copyright by the foreign company to the tax payer and therefore the payment would not fall within article 13(3)(c) of the Tax Treaty. The reference in Article 13(3)(c) is to “any copyright” and it is not a reference to “any right”. Hence, the payment cannot be said to be in the nature of royalty payment.
The sourcing activity of non-resident purchaser or an agent of such non-resident purchaser for exports of goods outside India will only be covered by the exclusion clause under deeming provisions of section 9(1 )(i) of ITA. A mere service provider may not be eligible to claim benefit of such an exclusion provision.
