Thursday, 7 June 2018

Imp Case Laws.

Nokia Networks OY vs. JCIT (ITAT Delhi Special Bench)

Entire law explained on (a) whether a subsidiary of a foreign company constitutes "business connection" and/ or "fixed Permanent Establishment" and/or "Dependent Agent Permanent Establishment" of assessee in India, (b) whether any attributes of profits on account of signing, network planning and negotiation of off-shore supply contracts in India could be attributed to such business connection/ permanent establishment and (c) whether notional interest on delayed consideration of supply of equipment and licensing of software taxable in the hands of assessee as interest from vendor financing     

HELD by majority in favour of the assessee:
According to the Supreme Court in Formula One World Championship Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in 394 ITR 80 (SC), the ‘disposal test’ is paramount which needs to be seen while analyzing fixed place PE under Article 5(1). Though in our humble understanding, the test of permanency qua fixed place has been slightly diluted by the Hon’ble Court but not the “disposal test”. Again this judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court has been reiterated and referred extensively in a subsequent judgment by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ADIT vs. E-Fund IT Solution (2017) 86 240, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court had quoted extensively the same views and commentaries and also the judgment of Formula One World Championship Ltd. and held that there must exist a fixed place in India which is at disposal of foreign enterprise through which they carry on their own business. In that case, the Indian subsidiary company of the foreign enterprise was rendering support services which enabled the foreign enterprise in turn to render services to its client and the outsourcing of work to the Indian subsidiary was held to be not giving rise to fixed place of PE. This judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court nearly clinches the issue before hand in so far as role of Indian subsidiary while deciding the fix place PE.
HELD by minority in favour of the revenue:
The assessee company had a PE in India by way of the premises and existence of its Indian subsidiary Nokia India Pvt Ltd, and that the profit attributable to the specified operations of this PE are 3.75% of total sales of the equipment in India. The plea of the assessee against the existence of business connection and the existence of permanent establishment is to be rejected, and plea of the assessee on the attribution of profit is to be partly accepted in the terms

Ernst & Young Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi)

S. 44C: A non- resident assessee is entitled to claim deduction of an amount equal to 5% of the adjusted total income as expenditure in the nature of Head Office (HO) Expenses. The fact that the expenses are not debited in the Profit & loss account or the books of account is irrelevant. The entries in the books of account are not conclusive 

No doubt, the assessee has not debited the said expenditure in the Profit & Loss Account. However, it is an admitted fact that the assessee has claimed the expenditure in the computation statement. The Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of British Bank of Middle East (supra) under similar circumstances has held that non-debiting of the expenditure in the books of account of India operations is not relevant for allowability of the same in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kedarnath Jute Mills Co. Ltd. (supra). It has been held that as long as the expenditure is really incurred and is otherwise deductible, the deduction cannot be declined on the ground that it has not been debited in the books of account. Since in the instant case there is no dispute to the fact that the head office has incurred the expenditure for the Branch office, the genuineness of which has not been doubted and since the assessee has claimed the deduction u/s 44C of the I.T. Act in the computation statement 

ACIT vs. Splendor Landbase Limited (ITAT Delhi)

Applicability of s. 80 to s. 153A returns: A return filed u/s 153A is deemed to be a return filed u/s 139(1). Accordingly, the restrictive provisions of s. 80 do not apply. The return u/s 153A, once accepted and assessed, replaces the original return filed u/s 139. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for carry forward business loss 

Therefore, if the assessee has filed a loss return u/s. 139(3) within the period provided under the Act and if the assessee has filed a revised loss return under Sub- section (5) thereof again within the prescribed time limit, the A.O is bound to take cognizance of the revised return because the original return is replaced by the revised return, held the Tribunal. In the present case before us, undisputedly, the assessment u/s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act has been framed on the basis of return filed in response to notice issue u/s. 153A of the Act. Hence, now it is not open to raise contention by the revenue that return was filed beyond the prescribed time period mentioned in the notice issued u/s. 153A of the Act. The return of income filed in response to the notice u/s. 153A on the basis of which assessment in question has been framed thus has replaced the original return for determining the net income in the assessment u/s. 153A of the Act. Thus, in a sense, return filed in response to the notice issued u/s. 153A was a revised return and the assessment was re- assessment 

No comments: