Skip to main content

SC offers relief to MNCs over India outsourcing biz tax

SC offers relief to MNCs over India outsourcing biz tax
The Supreme Court in a recent judgment has ruled that the outsourcing of work to India by multinational companies (MNCs) per se would not give rise to any permanent establishment (PE) in the country and, hence, the global income of these MNCs attributable to this back-office work cannot be taxed in India.The judgment will have repercussions for taxing outsourcing businesses as well as subsidiaries of MNCs.

The apex court upheld the ruling of the Delhi High Court and rejected the contention of the revenue department in this regard.The case relates to taxation matters relating to two US-based companies e-Fund Corporation (e-Fund Corp) and e-Fund IT Solutions Group Inc (e-Fund Inc). These companies have paid taxes on their global income in the US.

e-Fund Corp is a holding company with almost a 100 per cent stake in IDLX Corporation, another company based in the US. IDLX Corporation holds almost a 100 per cent stake in IDLX International BV, based in the Netherlands. IDLX International BV, in turn, has a 100 per cent stake in IDLX Holding BV, which holds a 100 per cent stake in e-Funds International India Private Ltd. The judgment is a landmark in a series of permanent establishment (PE) cases The Supreme Court had earlier this year ruled that Formula One World Championship Ltd had a PE in the Buddh International Circuit, the venue of the Indian Grand Prix, and as such all India sourced business income of the
IDLX International BV is also a holding company having almost a 100 per cent stake in e-Fund Inc.The contention of the revenue department was that the income of eFund Corp and e-Fund Inc was attributable to India because the two | company was taxable in India In 2007, the SC had ruled in the case of revenue department versus Morgan Stanley that the outsourcing of services, such as back-office operations to a captive service provider would not per se create a PE of the parent in India assessees had a PE in India. This means that their income should be taxed in India, irrespective of whether they had paid taxes in the US.
The case relates roughly to assessment years 2000-01 to 2002-03 and 2004-05 to 2007-08.Separately, the income earned by e- Fund India was taxed in India. As such, the revenue department said that the balance or differential amount — income attributable to e-Fund Corp and e-Fund Inc not included in the income earned and taxed in the hands of e-Fund India — should be taxed in India.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi, had upheld the position of the revenue department. But, the Delhi High Court had rejected both the revenue department’s plea and the ITAT order.
The Supreme Court held that no part of the main business and revenue-earning activity of the two American companies was carried on through a fixed business place in India.It also said the Indian company only rendered support services, which enabled the assessees, in turn, to offer services to their clients abroad.The court said: “This outsourcing of work to India would not give rise to a fixed place PE and the High Court judgment is, therefore, correct on this score.”

The High Court had given the opinion that a holding company or a subsidiary company by itself cannot constitute a PE.Abhishek Goenka of PwC India said: “The decision reiterates the internationally accepted principles that a subsidiary company carrying on its own business does not by itself create a PE for its foreign holding company.”
Tax Law
The judgement is a landmark in a series of permanent establishment (PE)cases.
The supreme court had earlier this year ruled thatb formula one world championship LTd had a PE in the Budh International Circuit, the venue of the indianGrand Prix, and as such all india sourced Business income of the company we taxable in india.
In 2007 , the Sc had ruled in the  case of revenue department  Versus Morgan Stanely that the  outsourcing of service, such as back-office operation to a captive  service provider would not perse create a PE of the parent in india.
The Business Standard, New Delhi, 27th October 2017

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

At 18%, GST Rate to be Less Taxing for Most Goods

About 70% of all goods and some consumer durables likely to cost less

A number of goods such as cosmetics, shaving creams, shampoo, toothpaste, soap, plastics, paints and some consumer durables could become cheaper under the proposed goods and services tax (GST) regime as most items are likely to be subject to the rate of 18% rather than the higher one of 28%.

India is likely to rely on the effective tax rate currently applicable on a commodity to get a fix on the GST slab, said a government official, allowing most goods to make it to the lower bracket.

For instance, if an item comes within the 12% excise slab but the effective tax is 8% due to abatement, then the latter will be considered for GST fitment.

Going by this formulation, about 70% of all goods could fall in the 18% bracket.

The GST Council has finalised a four-tier tax structure of 5%, 12%, 18% and 28% but has left room for the highest slab to be pegged at 40%. A committee of officials will work out the fitment and the council…

Firms with sales below Rs.50 crore out of ambit

The tax department has reiterated that the PoEM rules, which require foreign firms to pay taxes in India if the effective control is here, will not apply to companies withaturnover of Rs.50 crore or less inafinancial year. Last month, the tax department had come out with the longawaited Place of Effective Management (PoEM) rules, which require foreign companies in India and Indian firms with overseas subsidiaries to pay local taxes if their businesses are effectively controlled by Indians. Then the rules did not setathreshold above which they were to apply. However, the accompanying press release states that the rules will not apply to companies withaturnover of up to Rs.50 crore inayear. That created confusion whether the threshold will be adhered to. Inacircular to clarify things, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) said the provision "shall not apply toacompany havingaturnover or gross receipts of ~50 crore or less inafinancial year".

PoEM rules essentially target shell …