Taxation of international digital transactions has been a perplexing issue. As per the international tax rules, where an enterprise is a resident in one state with income originating in another state (source country), international tax rules provide that the source country will have the taxing rights over such income only if it is established that the enterprise has a permanent establishment (PE) in the source country. Thus, for the source country to be able to tax profits arising from the digital economy, some physical presence of the non-resident enterprise is required in the source state.

However, today a non-resident can carry out a large amount of internet transactions in the source state without having any significant physical presence there. A website can be launched from anywhere and made available to users anywhere in the world. There is no central point, or physical location, for such a transaction and thus, it may not fall within any country’s jurisdiction for taxation purposes.

This opens up two possibilities: double taxation or non-taxation. The concerned people could be even further creative, and actually set up an online business at a place where none of the founders / promoters are present, thereby making it even more difficult to tax them.

Continue Reading Taxing the Digital Economy: The Rule of ‘Significant Economic Presence’

This is the fourth post in the our new blog series on the Budget 2018. Following our earlier posts (here, here, here and here) on the impact of the Budget on the Direct, Indirect Tax regimes and the Healthcare sector, this piece focuses on the amendments to the advance ruling system under the Customs Act. We hope you enjoy reading this as much as we have enjoyed putting this together.

The Finance Act, 2017 consolidated the Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) for customs law and direct taxes, to promote the ease of doing business in India. In continuation to that, as well as the introduction of the Goods and Service Tax (GST), the Union Budget 2018 (Budget) proposes various amendments to the Customs Act, 1962 (Customs Act). Such amendments not only include enhancement in the scope of the advance ruling system in India, but also entail revamping of its procedural aspects.

Scope of AAR

The regulatory environment is proposed to be made more conducive by enlarging the ambit of the eligible persons entitled to make an application for advance ruling. Presently, only a joint venture in India, a non-resident person setting up a joint venture in collaboration with a non-resident/ resident, a wholly owned subsidiary of a foreign company, or certain other notified persons (i.e. PSU’s, resident companies and firms, residents importing from Singapore) can apply for an advance ruling.

The amendments proposed in the Budget would allow any person holding a valid Importer-Exporter Code, exporting any goods to India, or having a justifiable cause to the satisfaction of the AAR, to make an application for advance ruling. The said proposal grants wide discretionary powers to the proposed AAR to be constituted under the Customs Act (Customs AAR) to entertain any applicant having a justifiable cause to its satisfaction. This potentially extends the said facility to all persons, including foreign individuals, looking to independently set up business in India or export to India. Additionally, in line with the intent of ensuring the ease of doing of business in India, the proposals include amendments to allow foreign persons intending to export goods to India to be represented by an authorised Indian resident for advance ruling purposes. Interestingly, it is also proposed that the ambit of Customs law be expanded to include persons out of India. This would facilitate the effective regulation of import-export transactions undertaken by foreign suppliers.

Continue Reading Authority for Advance Rulings under Customs Law: A Metamorphosis

This is the third post in the our new blog series on the Budget 2018. Following our earlier posts (here, here and here) on the impact of the Budget on the Direct and Indirect Tax regimes, this piece focuses on the initiatives proposed under this Budget in the Healthcare sector. We hope you enjoy reading this as much as we have enjoyed putting this together.

A healthcare focused Budget. Universal healthcare on the anvil.

“India cannot realise its demographic dividend without its citizens being healthy”…. Mr. Arun Jaitley, Hon’ble Finance Minister of India in his budget speech of February 1, 2018.

One of the key constituents of the Union Budget for the year 2018-2019 is healthcare. With the Budget envisaging a boost to the healthcare insurance, service provider and pharmaceutical sector, share prices of some key pharmaceutical companies showed a spike during the speech.

The Hon’ble Finance Minister announced two new initiatives under the “Ayushman Bharat Programme“:

Continue Reading First Impressions of the Budget 2018 – Healthcare, Pharmaceuticals and Life Sciences

This is the second post in the our new blog series on the Budget 2018. Following our two-part post (here and here) on the impact of the Budget on the Direct Tax regime, this piece focuses on the amendments proposed under this Budget in the Indirect Tax space. We hope you enjoy reading this as much as we have enjoyed putting this together.

With the Indian economy recovering from a transitional slump post the implementation of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) of July 01, 2017, the Union Budget 2018 (Budget), tabled in the Lok Sabha on February 01, 2018, reinforces the commitment of Central Government to its “Make in India” and “Digital India” initiatives.

Though the Budget does not propose any significant changes in GST legislation, it recommends changes on the customs front, with a clear intent to vitalise the domestic manufacturing sector, while maintaining investor interest. The key amendments proposed to customs law are detailed below:

  • Customs

Tariff – For the first time in over a decade and a half, the government has increased customs duty rates ostensibly with a view to boost domestic manufacturing in terms of the “Make in India” initiative. The sectors impacted are electronics, automobile, medical devices, packaged food, cosmetics, textile, etc. The duty hike on mobile phones, smart watches, perfumes, fruit juices, television parts such as printed circuit boards and cabinets, cosmetics, silk fabrics, etc. is expected to create a push for suppliers to manufacture or source components in these sectors, locally.

Continue Reading First Impressions of the Budget 2018 – Indirect Tax

Published here is Part II, the concluding section, of our blog piece on the key amendments proposed under Budget 2018 to the Income Tax Act. You can view Part I here. We hope you enjoy reading this as much as we have enjoyed putting this together.

  • Amendments in Relation to Income Computation Disclosure Standards (ICDS): Recently, the Delhi High Court had held that some provisions of the ICDS are unconstitutional for want of legislative backing and their variance from applicable judicial precedents. In order to provide a requisite legislative framework for ICDS, the Budget now proposes to make various amendments in the provisions of the IT Act, pertaining to the deduction of marked to market losses computed in accordance with ICDS, for treating the gains or losses, computed in accordance with ICDS, as income or loss and to provide for a method of valuations in cases of inventory, goods, services and securities, etc.
  • Facilitating Measures for Companies under Insolvency Proceedings:
    • Relief from MAT: The Budget proposes to provide MAT relief for companies whose application for a corporate insolvency resolution process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) has been admitted by the Adjudicating Authority. Accordingly, the aggregate amount of unabsorbed depreciation and loss brought forward shall be allowed to be reduced from the book profit to determine MAT.
    • Benefit of carry forward and set off of losses: The provisions of section 79 of the IT Act relating to carry forward and set off losses would not apply to companies whose resolution plan has been approved under the IBC.

Continue Reading First Impressions of the Budget 2018: Income Tax Act – Part II

This is the first post in the our new blog series on the Budget 2018. This is a two-part piece on the amendments proposed under this Budget to the Income Tax Act; published here is Part I. We hope you enjoy reading this as much as we have enjoyed putting this together.

On 1st February, 2018, the Finance Minister Mr. Arun Jaitley presented the last full-year Union Budget before the 2019 Lok Sabha elections. It was delivered against a backdrop of economic slowdown caused by demonetisation in November, 2016 and the implementation of Goods and Services Tax (GST) legislations. The Budget focuses on strengthening agriculture and the rural economy, providing social security benefits and infrastructure creation.

The Finance Minister stated that the Indian economy is reviving and predicted that its Gross Domestic Product will rise to 7-7.5% in 2018-19, and that India is expected to become one of the world’s fastest and largest economies.

In the paragraphs below, we present a snapshot of some of the proposed amendments to the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act) presented in this Budget:

Continue Reading First Impressions of the Budget 2018: Income Tax Act – Part I

In the case of Wiki Kids Limited[1], the NCLAT upheld the order of the NCLT rejecting a scheme of amalgamation, as it resulted in undue advantage to the promoters of the amalgamating company.

Facts

Background

In the instant case, a non-listed company Wiki Kids Limited (Transferor Company), wished to amalgamate with Avantel Limited, a listed company (Transferee Company). For the aforesaid purpose, these entities (collectively referred to as Appellants) had proposed a scheme of amalgamation (Scheme) and approached the Andhra Pradesh High Court, seeking directions with respect to the meetings of the shareholders, and secured and unsecured creditors in the Scheme.

Pursuant to the directions of the High Court, the Scheme was approved by the shareholders of the Transferee Company. In the meantime, in view of a notification of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs dated December 7, 2016, the case was transferred to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The Appellants, accordingly, filed a second motion before the Hyderabad Bench of the NCLT. The NCLT, on perusal of various documents including the share exchange ratio and the valuation report, rejected the Scheme on the ground that it was beneficial to the common promoters of the Appellants and no public interest was being served.

Continue Reading NCLT Can Reject a Scheme of Arrangement if it is not in Public Interest

Multinational enterprises often outsource back-office support operations to their captive subsidiaries in India. Additionally, foreign parent companies second their employees to provide guidance to the Indian subsidiary in the provision of back-office functions. A contentious question has for some time arisen, however. Should such arrangements constitute a fixed place Permanent Establishment (PE), a service PE or a Dependant Agent PE (DAPE) for the foreign company in India?

In the 2007 case of Morgan Stanley[i], the Supreme Court (SC), while dealing with the issue of PE, held that back office functions performed by the Indian subsidiary were preparatory and auxiliary in nature and, therefore, did not constitute a fixed place PE. The SC also held that if the foreign company had deputed its employees to the Indian company to render stewardship services, then no service PE would be constituted in India.

In contrast, however, in the case of Centrica Offshore[ii] in 2014, the Delhi High Court (Del HC), held that if the terms of employment of the employees seconded to India continued to be controlled by the foreign company, it would be regarded as having constituted a service PE in India.

In the ensuing paragraphs, we discuss the recent decision of the SC in the instant case of e-Funds Corporation and its implications for resolving this long-standing issue.

Continue Reading Outsourcing of Back Office Support Functions Does Not Create a Permanent Establishment

The Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act) contains several provisions to prevent tax evasion. One such provision seeks to tax loans and advances made to shareholders by a closely held company as deemed dividends in the hands of the shareholders. This is intended to prevent tax evasion in situations where closely held companies distribute accumulated profit as loans or advances which are not chargeable to tax under the IT Act, instead of distributing it as dividends which is chargeable to tax under the IT Act. However, the said provision of deemed dividend is attracted subject to the satisfaction of the following conditions:

Continue Reading Supreme Court Rules: Deemed Dividends Are Taxable Only in the Hands of Shareholders

Permanent Establishment (PE) is a significant feature of bilateral tax treaties and is a key threshold adopted by source countries to tax profits earned by non-resident entities from the business activities carried out by the non-resident in the source country.

A ‘Fixed Place PE’ relates to a non-resident entity having a fixed place of business in the source country. But certain tax treaties also provide for a ‘Service PE’. A Service PE is established if: (i) the non-resident delivers services for longer than the prescribed threshold; and (ii) the said services are furnished in the source country through the employees or other personnel of the non-resident.

Traditionally, a Service PE required the physical presence of employees of the non-resident in the source country. However, in the present digital economy, this understanding is being challenged as more and more jurisdictions are doing away with this requirement.

The governments of Saudi Arabia and Israel, for example, have passed internal guidelines that suggest a non-resident would have a Service PE if it furnished services, including consultancy services, through employees or other personnel who are offshore and not physically present in the Source State. This would only be the case, however, if the activities continue (for the same or connected projects) within the Source State for more than 183 days in any 12-month period.

Continue Reading Service PE Does Not Require Physical Presence of Employees