Apollo Consulting Services Corporation v DIT [ITA No: 2983 (Mum) of 2010 dtd 27 July 2012] Mumbai ITAT Background: M/s. Apollo Consulting Services Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ACSC) is a non-resident company incorporated in USA. ACSC and IBM (based in USA) had entered into a Global Agreement which is also known as ‘Base Agreement’ on 11.01.2002. By virtue of this agreement, ACSC agreed to provide IBM, USA and its global subsidiaries certain services. In the background of the Base Agreement, IBM India made deal with ACSC through IIC Systems Private Limited, India (hereinafter referred to as ISPL) for the services to be performed in the USA. During the previous year, as per the agreement between IBM India and ISPL, ACSC provided technical manpower to IBM in USA according to its requirements. Thus, the link between the three entities was that, purchase orders are issued by IBM to ISPL who in turn passed that to ACSC. The entire arrangement was for providing skilled manpower in USA.
International Taxation
Armstrong World Industries Mauritius Multiconsult Ltd., In re A.A.R. NO. 1044 OF 2011 (dtd 22.08.2012) Background: Armstrong World Industries Mauritius Multiconsult Ltd (Armstrong Mauritius) is a wholly owned subsidiary of Armstrong World Industries Limited United Kingdom (Armstrong UK). Armstrong UK in turn is a fully owned subsidiary of Armstrong USA. The Armstrong Mauritius was incorporated in Mauritius in the year 1999. It is a tax resident of Mauritius. Armstrong World Industries India (Pvt.) Limited (Armstrong India) was incorporated in India in the year 1999 as a wholly owned subsidiary of Inarco Ltd., an Indian company. Inarco Limited was engaged in the business of production of textile machine parts and floorings. Armstrong UK, through the applicant, was holding 50% of the share capital in Inarco Limited. Pursuant to a scheme of amalgamation, approved by the High Court of Bombay, the flooring business of Inarco Limited was transferred to Armstrong-India. In consideration of that transfer of business, Inarco Limited was allotted 3,60,000 shares of the value of Rs. 10/- each in Armstrong India. Subsequently, Inarco Limited transferred to Armstrong Mauritius 36,00,000 shares of Rs. 10 each of Armstrong India. This resulted in Armstrong Mauritius holding 99.97% of the share capital of Armstrong India. The other 0.03% of the shares therein are held by Armstrong UK.
AAR disregards Revenue’s arguments for treating Mauritian company as conduit company
DIT v Credit Suisse First Boston (Cyprus) Ltd. [IT APPEAL NO. 1026 OF 2011] (Bombay HC) Issue 1: Whether Interest accrued but not due on the balance sheet date is taxable Background: The assessee is a company incorporated in and is a tax resident of Cyprus. It carries on business of banking and was, at the relevant time, registered in India with the Securities & Exchange Board of India (SEBI) as an approved sub-account of Credit Suisse First Boston, a Foreign Institutional Investor (FII). SEBI had permitted the assessee to invest in India exclusively in debt-securities, including Government securities. The assessee follows the mercantile system of accounting. The assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2001-2002 on 31st October, 2001, declaring a total income of Rs.5,94,28,493 comprising of interest income from securities and claimed exemption in respect of income on sale of securities. The AO held that Rs.1,21,57,517/- is required to be taxed as interest accrued though not due on securities held by the assessee as on 31st March, 2007, being the last date of the financial year. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] deleted both the additions. The ITAT upheld the order.
Taxability on “Interest accrued but not due”; Excess amt received on sale of govt securities ...
Jeans Knit (P.) Ltd v DCIT [ITA No: 19 & 23 (BANG.) OF 2010] (Bangalore ITAT) Background: The assessee is a 100% export oriented undertaking and is engaged in the business of manufacturing and export of garments. During the relevant financial year, the assessee made remittances to M/s Sharp Eagle International Ltd. (SEL), a non-resident company incorporated in Hongkong. The AO observed that the assessee made these remittances without deduction of tax at source as per provision of sec. 195(1) read with sec. 9(i)(vii) of the Act. The assessee submitted that SEL was acting on directions of the assessee for inspection of fabrics, timely dispatch of material etc. and for these services, the assessee paid 12.5% of imported value as charges to the non- resident company. The AO held that the charges paid to the non-resident company are fees for technical services (FTS) as defined in explanation 2 to sec. 9(1)(vii) and therefore, held the assessee to be defaulter u/s 201(1A) for non deduction of tax. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) also upheld the order of the AO.
Payment to overseas agent is not FTS – Bangalore ITAT
Abbey Business Services (India) (P.) Ltd v DCIT [2012] 23 taxmann.com 346 (Bangalore – Trib.) Facts of the case: The assessee-Indian company(Abbey India) incorporated on 22-1-2004 under the Companies Act, 1956 entered into an agreement for secondment of staff with its overseas parent company (Abbey National Plc., UK) on 4-2-2004. The secondment agreement contained inter alia the following clauses 3.2 to 3.6 3.2 Particular Secondments Abbey India and Abbey UK shall complete, sign and date a Secondment Term Sheet in respect of each employee agreed between them to be seconded to Abbey India in accordance with the terms of this Agreement.
Secondment is not “rendering of services”, if the other entity is their ‘real and economic ...
The Director General of Income-tax has issued draft guidelines in respect of the General Anti-Avoidance Rules (GAAR) vide letter dated 28.06.2012. GAAR is scheduled to become applicable with effect from 1 April 2013. The guidelines contain procedures for implementation of GAAR and illustrations to clarify the application of GAAR provisions. Click here to download the draft guidelines
Draft GAAR guidelines providing procedures and clarifications/ illustrations dtd 28.06.2012
CIT v Bovis Lend Lease (India) (P.) Ltd. IT Appeal Nos. 15 to 22 of 2010; IT Appeal Crob. NoS. 2 to 9 of 2011† [Karnataka High Court] Background: The assessee, a private limited company, carrying on the business of project and construction management entered into a management services agreement LLAH, Singapore. Under the agreement, LLAH was to provide services like administration, personnel, legal, finance and accounting information, marketing support, insurance matters, treasury management and information technology to the assessee. LLAH filed applications under Section 197 of the Act. LLAH furnished copies of the invoices raised by them to the AO. It was contended that the consideration paid under the agreement is by way of reimbursement of actual expanses. The assessing authority issued certificates authorizing the payment without deduction of tax. Later, the Authority issued a notice under Section 201 calling upon the assessee to show cause as to why he should not be treated, as an assessee in default under Section 201(1) and also why interest should not be levied under Section 201 (1A) as the assessee has not deducted tax as required under Section 195(1) of the Act at the time of making a credit entry. The assessing authority held that the intention of the assessee was to get the benefit of LLAH’s expertise and experience in management services. The consideration was paid for such services.
NIL-Deduction Certificate issued u/s 197 provides immunity to the payer, even if the sum is ...
Dongfang Electric Corporation v DDIT (I.T.A. No.: 833/Kol/2011) Kolkata ITAT Background: The Assessee, a Chinese company, had entered into contracts with Indian entities for setting up of turnkey thermal power projects. Each of these contracts were divided into two parts – one for supply of equipment and materials of thermal power plant and second for erection and services of units of main plant along with some common facilities.The Assessee had a project office in India which constituted a permanent establishment (PE) for the assessee in India under the India-China DTAA. The consideration receivable by the assessee was separately provided in respect of (i) offshore supply of equipment, spare parts and tools outside India (offshore supply) and (ii) for local supply, design, engineering, construction, erection, installation, testing and commissioning of thermal power units (onshore activities).
Taxation of composite contracts including offshore supply of equipments – Kolkata ITAT
DCIT v TVS Electronics Ltd IT Appeal NO. 811 (MDS.) of 2010 (Chennai ITAT) Facts of the case The assessee made payment to M/s Rosewell Group Services Ltd. based in Mauritius for market survey, qualitative consumer measurement, retail store site information, etc. without deducting tax at source under section 195 of the Act The AO concluded that the payment made was nothing but fees for technical services relying on Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act.