Profits of dealings with HO by MNCs branch taxable

Exchange Rate for imported goods is Rs 74.03 Per Pound Sterling and Rs 51.22 Per Yen-Exchange Rate for export is Rs 72.45 Per Pound Sterling and Rs 49.94 Per Yen-Customs Non-Tariff Notification No.128 Sensex slips further and closes at 8773 100 per cent EOUs allowed to export non-basmati rice-DGFT Notification No.59 Customs duty of 5 per cent imposed on import of Pig Iron, spiegeleisen, semi-finished products, flat products & long products Import of Crude Soyabean Oil subjected to 20 per cent customs duty- no change in import duty on refined soyabean oil-Customs Tariff Notification No.122 Time-limit for filing refund of service tax extended to 6 months-Service Tax Notification No.32 Rahul Bajaj asks Industry to prepare for the worst Tariff Value for import of Brass Scrap is 3525 and for poppy seeds 5206-Customs Non-Tariff Notification No. 127 CBEC clarifies the entire amount of duty paid by the manufacturer, as shown in the invoice would be available as credit irrespective of the fact that subsequent to clearance of the goods, the price is reduced by way of discount or otherwise-Central Excise Circular No.877 Mandavariya (Kishangarh), District Ajmer notified for Unloading of imported goods and loading of export goods-Customs Non-Tariff Notification No.117 SC Ruling-the entitlement of benefit in terms of Section 32AB, Section 80HH and Section 80I of the Income Tax Act- conversion of Jumbo rolls of photographic films into small flats and rolls in the desired sizes amounted to manufacture/production-AIT-2008-413-SC SC Ruling-Whether any "gift" arose in terms of Section 2(xii) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 on the allotment of rights issue by the appellant company to its shareholders vide Board's Resolution- Whether there was any element of "gift" as defined under Section 2(xii) in the appellant issuing Bonus shares in the ratio of 1:23-AIT-2008-412-SC DEPB benefit allowed on export of cement and steel-DGFT PN 108 exports of cement in all types and forms and primary steel products eligible for export incentives under Focus Market Scheme-DGFT Notification No.58 Import of Marble Tiles-DGFT Notification No.57 Clarification on setting up Duty Free Shops approved by FIPB-Customs Circular No.19 HC Ruling-Income Tax-"reserves" arising out of the acquisition of the business of Tata Cellular Limited could never have the character of "income" in the hands of the petitioners-pre-requisite condition contained in proviso to section 147 to enable the re-assessment to be opened after period of 4 years have elapsed have not been met-AIT-2008-410-HC HC Ruling-Central Excise- valuation of the goods for the purpose of excise duty and whether excise duty was chargeable under Section 4 or Section 4A of the Central Excise Act 1944-while construing rule 3, who are excluded are only the institutional or industrial consumers as explained in Rule 2A and the industrial or institutional consumers in terms of the proviso to rule 2(p) for the purpose of chapter-II are the same-If the person who purchase the prepacked commodity not directly from the manufacturer or packers, they are consumers and the declaration will be of no effect-AIT-2008-408-HC Government considering imposition of import duty on steel Bad News for Consulting Engineers- whether turnkey contract can be vivisected?- The conclusion in Daelim case on the point, prima facie, being not in accordance with law, matter goes to Larger Bench-AIT-2008-405-CESTAT Larger Bench of CESTAT rules Credit is admissible on an input service relating to the business-AIT-2008-407-CESTAT credit of the service tax paid on the outdoor catering (canteen) service is admissible as input service under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004-AIT-2008-406-CESTAT The payment for use of "services for MTNL/other companies via the interconnect/port/access/toll by the assessee would not fall within the purview of payments as provided for under section 194J of the Act, so as to be eligible for tax deduction at source-The interconnect charges/port access charges cannot be regarded as fees for technical services-AIT-2008-404-HC Computation of Value under Section 14 for Levy of Export Duty - Customs Circular No. 18 Advance Ruling- Whether the service fee paid by the applicant to Intertek Testing Management Limited UK under Global Management Service Agreement is taxable as "Royalties & Fee for Technical Services" as per the provisions of Article 13 of DTAA between India & UK? Whether the applicant is required to deduct tax at source on the service fee paid to Intertek Testing Management Limited, UK, at the rate of 10% plus applicable surcharge and cess as per the provisions of section 115A(1)(b)(BB) of the Income-tax Act-AIT-2008-401-AAR Larger Bench of SC Ruling-whether the revenue can be precluded from filing an appeal even though in respect of some other years involving identical dispute no appeal is filed -AIT-2008-403-SC SC Ruling-whether transfer of Banking Undertaking gave rise to taxable capital gains under Section 45 of the 1961 Act-it was not possible to compute capital gains and, therefore, the said amount of Rs. 10.20 cr. was not taxable under Section 45 of Income Tax Act-AIT-2008-400-SC Export duty of 8 per cent notified in place of earlier rate of Rs. 200 per tonne on export of iron ore fines-Customs Tariff Notification No.121 Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination And Collection of Duty) Second Amendment Rules, 2008-Central Excise Non-Tariff Notification No.45 SC rules Ethylene and propylene manufactured by the assessee and used in its factory in the further manufacture of the same goods would be entitled to the benefit of exemption contained in notification no.217/86-AIT-2008-398-SC New DEPB Rates on export of all products notified–DGFT PN 102 service tax paid under Section 66A is available as 'input credit' under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 provided the said services are used as input services by the manufacturer or producer of final products or a provider of output taxable service-Service Tax Trade Notice No.43/2008 Anti-dumping duty imposed on import of cable ties from China & Taiwan-Customs Tariff Notification No.118 Definitive Anti-dumping duty imposed on import of Phenol from Singapore, South Africa & European Union-Customs Tariff Notification No.114 High-tech products entitled to benefits under High-Tech Products Export Promotion Scheme –DGFT PN 101

JUDGMENTS

CENTRAL EXCISE

CUSTOMS

exchange rate

SERVICE TAX

INCOME TAX

VAT

FINANCE ACTS

FINANCE BILLS

EOU STPI

SEZ

DGFT

RBI

NTT

RESOURCES

Email | Print

Profits of dealings with HO by MNCs branch taxable
AIT News Network

MUMBAI. Vide a significant ruling AIT-2006-222-ITAT ; the Tribunal has settled the issue whether, under the Indian Income Tax Act 1961, the profits arising out of dealings of a foreign company’s Indian branch office, with its head office and with other foreign branches, is taxable in India or not.

T H E F A C T S:

The assessee was a non resident banking company incorporated in Germany, and operating in India through its branch office in Mumbai. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that “the assessee has given a note to the computation of income that inter-branch income/ expenditure credited/debited to profit and loss account have been excluded while arriving at the total income since the Bank cannot be regarded as trading with itself i.e. having earned income or incurred expenditure by mere reason of Mumbai branch debiting/ crediting the ledger account of the other branches outside India”. In response to AO’s requisition as to why the income from inter-branch transactions should not be brought to tax in India, the assessee reiterated that the branch and head office transactions are transactions with oneself.

The AO was of the view that the income of the assessee would be covered by section 9(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer was also of the view that if the branch and head office are to be viewed as one and the same thing, then there was no reason to file ‘return in respect of India operations’. The AO observed that it was accepted international tax law practice that income “accruing or arising” in a country is taxed in that country. The Assessing Officer further took note of the factual position that in notes forming part of the computation of income “the assessee has mentioned that profits have been computed in accordance with the provisions of the DTAA (between India and Germany). The AO then referred to various articles of India Germany DTAA and having analyzed the same, concluded that “these articles are very clear that the income of the assessee is quite independent of its head office” and that “the statute has made it mandatory to treat these as separate entities”. The AO also concluded that “the interest earned from NOSTRO would be deemed to have been accrued or arisen in India as it was emanated from India operations of the bank”.

AO made an addition of Rs 5,17,39,005 to the returned income of the assessee company. CIT(A) confirmed the Order of AO.

T H E R U L I N G:

Under the Income Tax Act, so far as foreign companies are concerned, taxable unit is a foreign company and not its branch or permanent establishment in India, even though the taxability of such foreign companies is confined to (i) an income which ‘accrues or arises in India’ or is ‘deemed to accrue or arise in India', and (ii) an income which is received or is deemed to be received by or on behalf of such foreign company.

A non resident assessee may have several incomes accruing or arising to it inside India or outside India, but, so far as taxability u/s 5(2)(b) in India is concerned, it is restricted to incomes which accrue or arise, or is deemed to accrue or arise in India. The scope of this deeming fiction is set out under section 9 of the Act. As for the income accruing or arising in India, an income which accrues or arises to a foreign enterprise company in India can essentially be only such a portion of income accruing or arising to such a foreign enterprise as is attributable to its business carried out in India. This business could be carried out through one or more branches or some other form of its presence in India. To determine income accruing or arising in India to a foreign enterprise, therefore, we have to compute income attributable to such branch(es) in India, or other form(s) of presence in India such as office, project site, factory, sales outlet etc, (hereinafter collectively referred to as ‘permanent establishment’ or ‘PE’) of foreign enterprise. It takes us to the question as to what is the scope of income accruing or arising to a foreign company in India. That is the core issue in this appeal before us. As far as the expression ‘income deemed to accrue or arise in India’ is concerned, section 9 of the Act elaborately deals with the same, but, as learned representatives agree, the expression ‘income accruing or arising in India’ is not defined anywhere in the Act, nor any judicial precedent is cited before us on the scope of this expression. We will, therefore, have to make our endeavour to find out the principles on the basis of which the income accruing or arising to a foreign enterprise in India can be determined.

The very concept of computation of PE profits is created as a fiction of tax law in order to demarcate tax jurisdiction over the operations of a company in a country of which it is not a tax resident. Unless the PE is treated as a separate profit centre, it is not possible to ascertain the profits of the permanent establishment which, in turn, constitute profits accruing or arising to the foreign GE in India.
As a first step to the computation of business profits accruing or arising in India to the German GE, therefore, we have to compute the profits of the Indian branch or Indian PE of the German company.
The proposition that intra organisation transactions are to be ignored for computing the business profits holds good only when profits of the organisation as whole are to be computed, or when these transactions are domestic transactions within one single enterprise and within one tax jurisdiction. These intra organisation transactions, which should more aptly be termed as ‘intra organisation dealings’, have a significant impact on the determination of profits of the organisational units – whether termed as permanent establishment, or by whatever other description.
Cross border dealings within an enterprise, which necessarily concern at least two tax jurisdictions, however, need to be examined in a different perspective – the perspective of ascertaining profits taxable in each such jurisdiction as also the perspective of ascertaining the income eligible for exemption, when tax credit in GE domicile tax jurisdiction is by way of exemption, in the GE domicile tax jurisdiction.
The computation of profits in each PE state, i.e. each tax jurisdiction, thus has a dual role. On one hand, this computation decides the quantum of income on which source country can levy the tax, and, on the other hand, this computation also decides, generally speaking, the quantum of income for which tax credit is granted in the domicile country.
It is necessary that the profits of the PE are computed as independent units.
In order to arrive at the true profits of a branch or the PE, howsoever you term it, the intra organizations at the arms length price are to be taken into account. That is settled accounting position, so far as determination of profits of a PE are to be taken into account. No contrary accounting practice has been brought to our notice.
Intra organisation interest income will have to be taken into account to arrive at the ‘income accruing or arising in India’.
We have no treat the branches as hypothetically independent, and that is the underlying presumption in branch accounting methods in accountancy as well.
Transfer pricing provisions cannot, and donot, introduce new incomes in the tax net, but only provide that incomes from international transactions are to be computed at arm’s length price. The fact that head office – branch office interest transactions are also to be computed as income on the basis of transfer pricing provisions, only confirms, as in our considered view is the correct legal position, that interest earned by the branch office from head office is a taxable event, so far as taxability of branch office is concerned.
For the purposes of computing profits of a PE, the intra organization transactions are to be taken into account as long as these transactions are real and bonafide transactions. It is not the assessee’s case that the interest income from the head office is without any consideration or without sufficient consideration. In other words, fact of or correctness of interest earnings from head office are not in dispute. Therefore, in our considered view, the interest earnings from the head office are to be taken into account for the purposes of computing profits arising in or accruing in India.

( Click here for full text of ruling AIT-2006-222-ITAT )