AAR holds that payment
received by the Applicant (a US based technology company) from its India based
group company under the non-exclusive Reseller Agreement for
sale of applicant's content delivery solutions directly to customers in
India, not taxable as FTS/FIS or Royalty under the Act or
India-US DTAA; Accepts Applicant’s contention that the Solutions provided
by it are in the nature of a 'standard facility' and do not cater to
individual requirements of the customer, moreover absent human intervention it
cannot be termed as FTS under Explanation 2 to Sec. 9(1)(vii) of the Act, also
holds that the Solutions provided do not 'make available' knowledge to
the end user so as to fall under definition of FIS under Article 12 of DTAA;
Further holds that “when payments under Reseller Agreement are not towards
any IPR/Trademarks, it cannot be covered within the definition of royalty”,
also observes that Reseller Services Agreement does not contemplate
providing any kind of a software “product” to any of its customers or to the
Reseller; Distinguishes Revenue’s reliance on ABB FZ ruling which was rendered
in the context of use/sharing of specialized knowledge, expertise, etc. by
assessee through its employees, observes in present case there is no
use/sharing of knowledge, information, etc. by the Applicant with the Reseller
or the end user, likewise distinguishes Revenue’s reliance on various of
rulings including Samsung-Synopsis ruling, Vodafone South and Verizon rulings
on facts; With respect to PE, AAR clarifies that “once we have ruled
above that income does not accrue or arise in the hands of the Applicant as
Royalty or FTS/FIS…the question of existence of a PE under Article 5 becomes
irrelevant and academic, as no income can be attributed to it, if at all there
was one.”:AAR
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
CBDT issues second round of frequently asked questions in relation to Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024
This Tax Alert summarizes Circular No. 19/2024 dated 16 December 2024 (VSV 2- December Circular) issued by the Central Board of Direct Tax...
-
PCIT vs. The Executor of Estate of Late Smt. Manjula A. Shah (Bombay High Court) S. 50C Capital Gains: The valuation of the stamp autho...
-
This Tax Alert summarizes a recent ruling of the Supreme Court (SC) [1] on availability of CENVAT Credit on mobile towers and pre-fabrica...
-
IFRS and US GAAP - Similarities and Differences What is IFRS? And what is GAAP? The main difference between IFRS and US GAAP is that G...
-
Madras HC reverses ITAT's order, grants deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) to assessee (a society engaged in the business of banking and provi...
-
SC dismisses assessee-company’s SLP challenging Bombay HC order upholding re-assessment initiation (beyond 4 yrs period) based on a special...
-
SC dismisses Revenue’s SLP challenging Bombay HC order in case of assessee (belonging to Lodha group of companies engaged in real estate bu...
-
Claiming a foreign tax credit (FTC) in Australia allows companies to offset foreign taxes paid on income earned overseas against their Aust...
-
HC allows HDFC Bank’s writ petition, quashes AO’s order and subsequent reference to TPO alleging that certain related party transactions [p...
-
Delhi ITAT deletes Rs. 1558.57 cr. capital gains addition on Telenor India for AY 2014-15, holds that set off of non-refundable entry fee p...
-
This Tax Alert summarizes a recent ruling of the Bombay High Court (HC)1 on admissibility of input tax credit (ITC) w.r.t GST on advance p...
No comments:
Post a Comment