Photo of CAM Tax Team

CAM Tax Team

Subscribe to CAM Tax Team's Posts

The CAM Tax team can be reached at cam.mumbai@cyrilshroff.com

dual residence tax for Non Residential Indians NRIs

The concept of dual residence crucially affects taxation of non-resident Indians and individuals who travel frequently between India and other countries. India follows a residence-based taxation system for residents, i.e., an Indian resident is taxed on his global income. A non-resident is taxed on income which is sourced or accrued or received in India.

However, the confusion arises when an individual leaves the country and starts residing in another country under the laws of which he also becomes a resident in that other country in that year. Thus, the individual may become a ‘dual resident’ for tax purposes. Taxation of dual residents is resolved either under local laws or when there is a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) executed between the two jurisdictions of which they are residents, through application of the tie breaker clause in the DTAA.
Continue Reading The Dilemma of Dual Residence – Can Vital Interests Fluctuate Overnight?

Indian Supreme Court Rectifies Mistake and Grants Benefit of Tax

To attract investment, industrial activities and improve economic development ,in certain states such as Himachal Pradesh, Uttaranchal, Sikkim and the states in the North-East, the Central Government has introduced a time-bound tax holiday, deducting 100% profit for the first five years and 25% of profits in subsequent five years under section 80-IC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (IT Act).

This tax holiday is available to enterprises that have set up new units or carried out substantial expansion of existing units within a specified period (different dates apply for different states and regions). The conditions for availing the holiday are that the unit should operate or commence production, or manufacture specified articles, in these special category states.
Continue Reading Supreme Court Rectifies Mistake and Grants Benefit of Tax Exemption

Conversion of Company into LLP - Income Tax Act

The business form of Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) became available in India when the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008 (LLP Act) was enacted. Prior to this, businesses were organised as companies under the Companies Act. Small businesses find LLP to be a preferred form and since the LLP Act has a provision for conversion of a company into an LLP, many companies sought to convert to LLP. However, the question was whether such conversion would attract taxation under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act).
Continue Reading ITAT Holds Conversion of Company into LLP to be a Transfer

Taxpayer’s Choice for Valuation of Shares at Premium Upheld

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in the case of M/s. Rameshwaram Strong Glass (P) Ltd. v The Income Tax Officer[1] has upheld the right of the company issuing shares to choose the valuation methodology under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act) read with the rules framed thereunder (Tax Law) for the purposes of determining the ‘fair market value’ (FMV) of such shares at premium.
Continue Reading Taxpayer’s Choice for Valuation of Shares at Premium Upheld

With the decision in Sh. Rishi Gupta v. M/s Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd.[1], the National Anti-profiteering Authority (NAA) has shifted the focus from the Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) sector to the e-commerce sector.

In this case, the applicant alleged that the excess amount charged at the time of placing the order should be refunded to him, given that the rate of Goods and Services Tax (GST) reduced from 28% to 18%, between the date of placing the order and the date of supply. It was further alleged that the respondent, i.e. Flipkart, was resorting to profiteering in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), by not refunding the differential amount.
Continue Reading Anti-Profiteering Orders – A Right Step Forward? Part II

The Telangana and Andhra Pradesh High Court (High Court) in the case of Leo Edibles and Fats Limited v. TRO, Writ Petition No 8560 of 2018, has allowed the liquidation of assets of a company under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), despite the claim of the tax authorities that they have a charge over it, by virtue of having initiated attachment proceedings under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act). The High Court, while dealing with the interplay between the IT Act and the IBC, held that the income tax authorities are not at par with ‘secured creditors’ under the IBC.

The petitioner in the instant case had purchased certain property of a company undergoing liquidation under the IBC in an e-auction. The registrar refused to register the transfer in favour of the petitioner due to the attachment notice issued by the tax authorities. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the refusal of the registrar to register the sale deed – and sought issuance of direction to the income tax department to withdraw the said attachment.Continue Reading Decoded: The Interplay Between Tax Law and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code

Since its implementation on July 01, 2017, the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime continues to evolve on various fronts by way of rationalisation of tax rates, availability of exemptions, procedural amendments, etc. While the Government has been relentless in its efforts to iron out every crease, bottlenecks continue to persist. With the benefit of hindsight, here is a critical look at some of the significant triumphs and misses on completion of its first anniversary.
Continue Reading GST – First Report Card

Parties entering into contractual arrangements usually insist on including a clause for liquidated damages to pre-emptively agree upon the amount of reparation that would be payable by either Party on failure to meet its commitment. Generally, such commitments are in the nature of adhering to timelines, fulfillment of conditions, quality of products, etc.

The levy of an indirect tax on the amount of liquidated damages, has faced a series of challenges under the erstwhile service tax regime. Agreeing to the obligation to refrain from an act, or to tolerate an act or a situation, or to do an act was deemed to be service under the service tax regime[1] . Where liquidated damages were in the nature of accidental damages caused due to unforeseen actions and not relatable to the provision of service, these were not included in the value of the service, and hence not to be taxed[2] .Continue Reading GST Aftermath of Liquidated Damages

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (ITAT) recently delivered a very significant decision in the case of Nokia Networks O.Y (Assessee)[1] on the issue of its permanent establishment (PE) in India and attribution of income to the PE. The majority of members of the ITAT ruled in favour of the Assessee holding that its Indian subsidiary would not constitute a PE in India, especially in absence of a Service PE clause in the erstwhile India-Finland Tax Treaty (Treaty).

Facts

The Assessee is a resident of Finland and sold GSM equipment manufactured by it to Indian telecom operators, on a principal-to-principal basis. It’s Indian subsidiary, Nokia India Private Limited (NIPL) was either assigned the installation contracts by the Assessee or entered into independent contracts with the customers for installation. NIPL also entered into technical support agreements with customers. NIPL’s income from these activities was taxed in India.

The Assessing Officer (AO) was of the view that NIPL constituted a PE of the Assessee and attributed an additional 30 percent of the profit from the equipment to NIPL. The AO also concluded that 30% of the equipment price pertained to supply of software and sought to tax it as royalty in the hands of the Assessee. On appeal, the ITAT held that NIPL being a virtual projection would form a PE, and attributed to NIPL 20 percent of the Assessee’s profits from the sale of equipment to Indian customers.Continue Reading Subsidiary is Not a Permanent Establishment but Beware the ‘Virtual Projection’ Risk

The industry has been grappling with uncertainty around anti-profiteering provisions since its introduction. While the Goods and Services Tax (GST) legislation and rules were available in the public domain long before the effective date of July 01, 2017, the rules relating to anti-profiteering were made public only on June 28, 2017.

To everyone’s disappointment these rules failed to bring transparency and clarity to the implementation of anti-profiteering provisions; they merely chalked out the administrative hierarchy and framework of the authorities dealing with anti-profiteering complaints.

Subsequently, the Finance Ministry has made various statements promising clear guidelines on the manner of computation of commensurate benefit to be passed on to customers. However, till date nothing has been notified on this front.Continue Reading Anti-Profiteering Orders – A Right Step Forward?