Delhi ITAT upholds
taxation of consideration for providing SAP/CAD software related support
as FTS under Article 13(4)(a), being ancillary and subsidiary to the enjoyment
of the right / property for which royalty was received by assessee (a UK
co., JCBE), clarifies that ‘make available’ clause under Article 13(4)(c) is
not applicable; ITAT notes that in earlier years, assessee had entered into
bilateral agreement under which it used to receive royalty from JCB India
(Indian subsidiary) for licensing the technology with an exclusive right to
manufacture and market, however, during relevant AY, assessee entered into a
Tripartite Agreement whereby the technology was sub-licensed by assessee to JCB
investments, and the royalty paid by JCB India was routed through JCB
Investments; Thus noting that entire royalty amount was passed on to assessee
through JCB Investments less 0.5%, ITAT holds JCB Investments as a pass through
entity, remarks that "Substance will rule over
form", observes that except for this routing of royalty through JCB
Investments, all the terms and conditions of the agreement between the assessee
and JCB India including secondment of assessee's employee to JCB India for
rendering of services; Rejects assessee’s stand that co-ordinate bench ruling
holding JCB India a Service PE of assessee cannot be applied in present facts,
observes that there is no difference in the facts and circumstances except for
the tripartite vs. bilateral arrangement; Further follows co-ordinate bench
ruling to hold that royalty was not effectively connected to PE in India,
therefore, cannot be considered under Article 13(6), but should be taxed as
royalty / FTS under Article 13 itself:ITAT
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