The Interest Tax Act, 1974 specifically includes discounting charges in the definition of interest, however interest defined under ITA does not include discounting charges. Wherever the legislature was conscious of the fact that even the discount of bills of exchange is to be included within the definition of interest, the same was basically so provided for, hence the omission of these words in the definition provided under the ITA, enumerates the intention of the legislator to keep the same out of the ambit of „interest? under the ITA. The same rationale is also laid down in the Circular no. 652 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes in relation to section 1 94A of ITA.
This is yet another decision on the issue of whether the deputation of personnel by an overseas entity results in Permanent Establishment in India and the related attribution of profit and withholding tax issues.
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.
Prudential Assurance Company Ltd. (Prudential) is a foreign company incorporated in United Kingdom and is engaged in the business of Insurance. Prudential registered with the Securities and Exchange Board of India as a sub-account of a Foreign Institutional Investor (FII).
The High court agreed with the position taken by the appellate authorities that the security deposit did not constitute a loan since it was paid to the respondent in his capacity as the owner of the accommodation and in pursuance of a lease agreement. Further, the court agreed with the observation of the ITAT that the respondent did not get undue benefit / advantage as the terms of the lease were similar to the earlier agreement though he had not received the additional guarantee.
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 assessee manufactured cars using the brand name Maruti. It entered into an agreement with Suzuki, Japan, pursuant to which it began manufacturing cars using the brand name Suzuki. The TPO issued a show-cause notice in which he alleged that the substitution of the brand name Maruti for the name Suzuki meant that the assessee had soldthe Maruti brand to Suzuki. On that basis, he determined the arms length sale proceeds at Rs. 4,420 crores.
The solitary issue urged in these two appeals is that Whether the Learned CIT(A) is right in law in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in invoking the provisions of section 50C in the case of both the assessees.
The assessee, a division of Technical Resources Prt. Ltd. Australia, had entered into contracts with Rio Tinto India Pvt. Ltd. (RTIPL) for evaluation of coal deposits in Maharashtra and Orissa and for corresponding feasibility studies for transporting the same.
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.
