Payments towards workshops and learning programmes conducted by institutes, where no technical knowledge, experience or skills were shared or made available to the participants, could not be termed as “fees for included services”.
The receipts in the nature of referral fees do not constitute “fee for technical services”. Further, in the absence of a PE in India, the same cannot be subject to tax in India.
The applicant, a Dutch company was incorporated on 11 August 2008. On 6 November 2008, it acquired all the shares of an existing Indian company from another group company located in Germany. The shares were acquired for a consideration of INR 100 million.
FII‘s income from trading in futures and options is in the nature of business income. Special provisions under the domestic tax laws i.e. Section 1 15AD does not preclude FII‘s from earning business income in India.
ABB Limited, an Indian company (ABB India) and ABB Research Limited, Zurich, a Swiss company (ABB Zurich) are part of the ABB group. The group is engaged in the manufacturing of power products and systems technologies and has business activities across the globe in over 100 countries.
Merely coming together and acting in cooperation with each other for the purpose of executing the work while each member carries on its own scope of work independently does not reasonably lead to the conclusion that an AOP has been formed.
Under the specific facts of the case, customization of standardized software specific to client specifications was held to be “fees for included services” as the software developer made available technical knowledge, experience or skill to the client to enable client personnel to operate the software system themselves.
A plain reading of Section 76 of the Act indicates that a person who is liable to pay service tax and who has failed to pay such tax is under an obligation to pay, in addition to the tax so payable and interest on such tax, a penalty for such failure. The quantum of penalty has been specified in the provision by laying down the minimum and the maximum limits with a further cap in so far as the maximum limit is concerned.
Wallfort Shares & Stock Brokers, a Five Member Special Bench of the Tribunal (96 ITD 1 (Mum) (SB)) and the Bombay High Court (310 ITR 421 (Bom)) held that the ‘loss’ incurred by an assessee in ‘dividend-stripping’ transactions cannot be disallowed on the ground that it was ‘tax-planning‘. The department’s SLP against the said judgement has been dismissed by the Supreme Court today, 6th July 2010.
In CIT vs. Samsung Electronics 227 CTR 335 the Karnataka High Court has confined its decision to the issue of responsibility of the assessee u/s 195 in deducting tax at source before making remittances to non-residents. Even though the court held in favour of the Revenue on the application of the TDS provisions, the court made it clear in paragraph 78 that it has not examined the question of tax liability of the non-resident assessees in respect of the payments received from assesses in India.
