Provisions for taxing dividend income, receive yet another upgrade

The Finance Bill, 2020 (the “Bill”) was recently passed by the Lok Sabha (Lower house of the Parliament) on March 23, 2020, with more than 50 amendments to the Bill. The Bill has now received the presidential assent and has become an Act (“Finance Act”).  The new provisions proposed by the Bill, for taxing dividends have also been amended to expand the scope of certain benefits and to provide more clarity surrounding the applicability of these provisions. Through this blog, we would like to discuss changes pertaining to taxation of dividends.

Deduction for dividends received from foreign companies and business trust

As per the erstwhile section 115-O of the Income-tax Act,1961 (“IT Act”), distribution of dividends by a domestic company was subject to an additional income tax, called Dividend Distribution Tax (“DDT”), in the hands of the company at an effective rate of 20.56% (inclusive of the applicable surcharge and cess). Such tax was treated as the final tax on dividends and the dividends were generally exempt from any further incidence of tax in the hands of the investors. Further, in order to reduce the cascading effect of DDT, domestic companies while computing the amount of dividends on which DDT is paid were allowed a deduction for dividends received from its subsidiary (i.e. where the company holds more than 50% of the shareholding of the subsidiary), provided DDT was paid by the subsidiary during the same financial year. Similar deduction was also available on account of dividends received from a foreign company on which tax was payable by the domestic company under section 115BBD of the IT Act, provided the domestic company held at least 26% equity shareholding in the foreign company. Continue Reading Provisions for taxing dividend income, receive yet another upgrade

Dividend Distribution Tax Abolishment - Here’s Something Lost in Translation

The government has said taxes on income received from dividends will now have to be paid by the shareholders instead of the dividend distributing company. The Finance Bill 2020 presented alongside the Union Budget on February 1, 2020 abolished the imposition of Dividend Distribution Tax (“DDT”) w.e.f. FY 2020-21. Over two decades ago, the Finance Act 1997 under Income Tax Act, 1961(“IT Act”), introduced DDT wherein the taxes on dividend were directed to a single point i.e. to be paid by the dividend distributing company and the incidence of tax shifted from the recipient to the payer. Doing away with this practice, the government has once again reverted to the pre DDT days. Present rate of DDT is @15% on gross basis plus surcharge and cess, resulting in net tax rate of 20.56%. Continue Reading Dividend Distribution Tax Abolishment: Here’s Something Lost in Translation

MLI Impact on Treaty Benefit Tax Blog

The Base Erosion and Profit Shift (“BEPS”) programme, initiated by OECD, had recommended a host of action plans, which could be implemented by making changes to the international tax treaties. . However, there are more than 3000 bilateral tax treaties entered into by contracting countries and it would have taken years to amend them. To solve this problem, over 100  jurisdictions negotiated and concluded a multi-lateral instrument (“MLI”) in November 2016. Countries that agreed to change their tax treaties were required to sign and notify the OECD Secretariat.  India was amongst the first few signatories to the MLI in 2017 and ratified   it on June 25, 2019. Thus, its network of bilateral tax treaties would be impacted by the provisions of the MLI where its treaty partner is also a signatory. It is, therefore, necessary now to read the applicable tax treaty with MLI, based on the treaty partner’s position and reservations on the provisions of the MLI. Continue Reading Have You Checked the Applicability of Multi-Lateral Instrument Impacting Your Treaty Benefit Claim?

Banana for Rs 442 - GST Tax Laws

A recent social media post by an Indian actor depicting an invoice issued by a prominent hotel where he was charged INR 442 for two bananas created widespread furor among the public, industry players and the tax authorities, with certain quarters challenging the legality of levy of Goods and Service Tax (“GST”) itself on the supplies made. The invoice indicated the description of the sale item as a ‘fruit platter’ and the cumulative rate of GST as 18%. The Central Excise & Taxation Department also swung into action, served a show cause notice to the hotel and imposed a penalty of INR 25,000 for levying GST on sale of bananas. According to the department, serving bananas to the customer in a hotel room was an exempt supply of goods, not involving any element of service.

The banana row brings to light the classic conundrum of classification of composite supplies and consequent rate of GST applicable to such supplies. Composite supplies refers to supplies of two or more taxable supplies of goods or services or both, which are naturally bundled and supplied in conjunction with each other in the ordinary course of business, one of which is a principal supply (for example, supply of an air-conditioner coupled with delivery and installation at the customer’s premises would be a composite supply with supply of air-conditioner being the principal supply). The rate of tax in case of a composite supply is the rate applicable to the principal supply. Continue Reading Banana Bytes: A Classification Conundrum under GST

claim of depreciation of assets and carry forward of expenditure by trusts

In a very recent judgment of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (ITAT) in DCIT(E) v. Smt. Angoori Devi Educational & Cultural Society (Angoori Devi),[1] two very important questions in relation to the taxation of trusts were discussed:

  1. Whether depreciation can be allowed on assets that were acquired out of contributions received, which were exempt from tax since the said expense was allowed as application of income in the past years under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act);
  2. Whether excess expenditure incurred by a trust in an earlier assessment year could be allowed to be set off against the income of the subsequent year, and in the event of delay in filing the return, whether such a carry forward can be disallowed under section 80 of the IT Act.

Continue Reading Delhi ITAT clarifies the issues around claim of depreciation of assets and carry forward of expenditure by trusts

Revenue Recognition Policy of Telecom Companies Attains Finality

The Indian telecommunications sector has experienced unprecedented growth in recent years due to the significant increase in the subscriber base, with an increasing percentage of them looking for pre-paid connections. The sector now reaches out to every nook and corner of the country. What is even more praiseworthy is the fact that this has been achieved at very low cost and consumers have also prospered from availing such services at one of the lowest charge-out rates.

The above was possible because Indian telecommunication players were able to come up with extremely innovative invoicing options and accordingly also adopted very different revenue recognition mechanisms. As most of the growth was seen in the pre-paid section, the revenue recognition methodology adopted by the industry was also subject to a vigorous amount of scrutiny by the tax authorities and there has been a significant amount of litigation on account of the same. The controversy primarily arose because the contracts entered into by the telecom companies with prepaid customers were large in numbers and got modified frequently. Continue Reading Revenue Recognition Policy of Telecom Companies Attains Finality

Interest Paid on Convertible Debentures - Income Tax Law

The recent Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Order in CAE Flight Training (India) Pvt. Ltd. (TS-440-ITAT-2019 (Bang)) clarifies how Compulsorily Convertible Debentures (CCDs) are to be treated under Income Tax Laws.

Before delving into the Order and what the ITAT said in making it, it is important to understand the legal context in which this question arose in the first place. To do this, we first need to understand the nature of a CCD. A debenture is a debt-based security that may or may not be secured against the assets of the company. Although debentures are undisputedly debt instruments, CCDs are debentures that are mandatorily converted into equity according to pre-determined terms at a pre-defined time. In the pre-conversion stage, the CCD holder is considered as a debtor by the company and is required to be paid interest on its investment. Post-conversion, the debt becomes equity capital in the company, which results in such investor earning dividends from its holdings. Continue Reading ITAT Puts On It’s Thin(king)-Cap – Treatment of Interest Paid on Compulsorily Convertible Debentures Under the Income Tax Laws

 

Insurance Compensation Outside India for Loss of Interest in Indian Subsidiary Not Taxable in India

 

In M/s Adidas India Marketing (P.) Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer,[1] the Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the insurance compensation received by the foreign parent due to loss of financial interest in its Indian subsidiary is not the subsidiary’s income as alleged by the tax officer and, therefore, is not taxable in India.

Facts

Adidas India Marketing (P.) Ltd. (Assessee) is an Indian company engaged in the business of sourcing, distributing and marketing products of the brand ‘Adidas’. Nearly all (98.99 %) of the Assessee’s equity is held by another Indian company, Adidas India Private Ltd. (Adidas India), which, in turn, is a subsidiary of a German company, Adidas AG, Germany (Adidas Germany). Continue Reading Insurance Compensation Outside India for Loss of Interest in Indian Subsidiary Not Taxable in India, Holds Delhi ITAT

 

ITAT on the Taxability of Transfer of Know-how Under Development

Research and development (R&D) in all fields is a costly affair, but more so in bio-technology, where molecules are first evolved, developed and then subjected to arduous and expensive clinical trials. Till such time that the molecule reaches the final stage, it is simply work-in-progress (WIP), even though the idea and formulation are valuable.

Further development of the WIP is even more expensive and needs an even larger source of funding. To brave cash crunches and the inherent risk of uncertainty in R&D, a common and relevant modus operandi for many WIP technologies is to transfer such WIP into another group company or a joint venture company. Such transfer is intended to facilitate further fine-tuning of the WIP until eligible for commercial exploitation, through licensing, manufacturing, production or processing. Continue Reading ITAT on the Taxability of Transfer of Know-how Under Development

Are the Assets or monies distributed to retiring partners taxable

Disputes involving whether capital gains taxes are leviable on sums/assets paid to retiring partners has been a subject matter of litigation for several decades now. In order to bring clarity, the legislature introduced a new provision (i.e. section 45(4)) into the Income tax Act, 1961 (IT Act), which provided that capital gains tax should be levied in the hands of the partnership firm at the time of distribution of assets. This seems, however, to have further complicated the situation.

Bangalore Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in the case of Savitri Kudur[1] and the Madras High Court (HC) in the case of National Company[2] have delivered noteworthy decisions recently. The Bangalore ITAT held that the cash consideration paid to the retiring partner on the basis of the amount lying in his/her capital account would not be subject to capital gains tax under the IT Act by relying on the decision of the Supreme Court (SC) in the case of Mohanbhai Pamabhai[3]. The Madras HC, on the other hand, held that even the allotment of immovable properties to the retiring partners would not be subject to capital gains tax by relying on the same SC decision in the case of the Mohanbhai Pamabhai (supra). Continue Reading Never-Ending Saga: Are the Assets/Monies Distributed to Retiring Partners Taxable?