Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in its decision dated 22 November 2010 on the issue of constitutional validity of the levy of service tax on renting of immovable property and the validity of the retrospective amendment to the definition of ‘renting of immovable property’ under Finance Act, 1994 ruled in favor of the Revenue.
: It cannot be held that renting of property did not involve any service as service could only be in relation to property and not by renting of property. Renting of property for commercial purposes is certainly a service and has value for the service receiver. Even if it is held that transaction of transfer of right in immovable property did not involve value addition, the provision cannot be held to be void in absence of encroachment on List II.(Para 22) It is well settled that competent legislature can always clarify or validate a law retrospectively. It cannot be held to be harsh or arbitrary. Object of validating law is to rectify the defect in phraseology or lacuna and to effectuate and to carry out the object for which earlier law was enacted. (Para 23) we do not find any ground to set aside giving of retrospective effect to the amendment from
It was held by ITAT, Mumbai that computer software when put into a media and sold becomes goods like any other audio cassette or painting on canvass or book. Accordingly, the amount paid by taxpayer towards purchase of such computer software from a Singapore company cannot be treated as royalty as per the India-Singapore tax treaty (tax treaty).
The Bangalore Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) has ruled on the transfer pricing aspects of management services fees paid by the Taxpayer to its regional headquarter company (associated enterprise or AE). The Tribunal upheld the contention of the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) that the Taxpayer has not proved the commensurate benefits received for the service fees paid to the AE and, hence, ruled that the payment of the management services was not justified under arm’s length principles.
Once the payment of ‘off-the shelf software’ held not to be chargeable to tax as a royalty on the basis of the certificate obtained from a chartered accountant, no penalty and interest can be levied on the grounds that the assessee did not take prior approval of the assessing officer under section 195(2) of the Act.
It was held that the offshore supply of equipment, even on a CIF basis, under a composite contract is not taxable in India.
In Coca Cola India Inc vs. ACIT 309 ITR 194 the P&H High Court upheld the constitutional validity of Chapter X & laid down far-reaching principles on the applicability of transfer pricing provisions to cases where the non-resident was also assessed in India and there was supposedly no cross-border transaction or erosion of tax revenue. On appeal by the assessee, HELD disposing off the SLP: “The issue in this special leave petition concerns the application of the principle of Transfer Pricing. In the case of assessee herein, Notice was issued under Section 148 of the Act for some of the Assessment Years. On the question of jurisdiction, a writ petition was filed by the assessee, which has been disposed of by the High Court in the writ jurisdiction. However, on going through the papers, we find that foundational facts are required to be established which could not have been done by way of writ petition. For the afore-stated reasons, we are of the view that the assessee should be relegated to adopt proceedings, which are pending, as of date, before various Authorities under the Act … We, accordingly, direct these Authorities to expeditiously hear and dispose of pending proceedings as early as possible. If the petitioner-assessee herein is aggrieved by the orders passed by any of these Authorities, it will have to exhaust the statutory remedy provided under the Act. We make it clear that each of the Authorities will decide the matter uninfluenced by any of the observations made in the impugned judgement.”
Supreme Court disposed off a civil appeal arising out of a special leave petition involving a transfer pricing dispute, in the case of Maruti Suzuki India ltd. v. ADIT [Civil Appeal No. 8457 of 2010].The Delhi High Court , in the taxpayer’s case, had earlier, inter-alia held that the obligatory use of brand/logo of a foreign associated enterprise should be accompanied either by an appropriate payment by the foreign trademark owner or by a rebate to the Indian licensee. Furthermore, the HC also held that if the advertisement, marketing and promotion expenses incurred by a domestic enterprise, being even an entrepreneurial licensed manufacturer, which mandatorily uses the brand/logo of a foreign associated enterprise, are more than those incurred by independent domestic comparables, the foreign associated enterprise should provide arm’s length compensation to the domestic enterprise. Such compensation would be required for brand building and increased brand awareness in the domestic market, i.e., for creation of marketing intangible for the foreign associated enterprise.
Mumbai Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of M/s. Goldcrest Exports v. ITO held that compensation payable for breach of contract to a foreign company would not be taxable in the hands of the foreign company in the absence of a permanent establishment of the foreign company in India. The Tribunal further held that interest included in compensation merges with and partakes the character of compensation itself, and hence, would not be taxable under the tax treaty between India and UK . Therefore, deduction claimed by the assessee for compensation including interest cannot be disallowed on account of non-withholding of taxes therefrom.
The tax payer is engaged in the manufacture of cement. The adjudicating authority had disallowed the CENVAT Credit of service tax paid on services of repairs, maintenance and civil construction etc. as the services were used in the residential colony of the tax payer on the ground that the said services were not covered under the definition of input service and hence ineligible as input service defined under Rule 2(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
