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

Shrinking footprints of foreign banks in India

Shrinking footprints of foreign banks in India Foreign banks are increasingly shrinking their presence in India and are also becoming more conservative than private and public sector counterparts. While many of them have sold some of their businesses in India as part of their global strategy, some are trying to keep their core expertise intact. Others are branching out to newer areas to continue business momentum.For example, HSBC and Barclays Bank in India have got out of the retail business, whereas corporate-focused Standard Chartered Bank is now trying to increase its focus on retail “Building a retail franchise is a huge exercise and takes a long time. You cannot afford to lose it,” said Shashank Joshi, Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ’s India head.According to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) data, foreign banks’ combined loan book shrunk nearly 10 per cent from Rs 3.78 trillion in fiscal 2015-16 to Rs 3.42 trillion last financial year. The banking industry, which includes foreign banks…

New money laundering norms stump jewellery sector

New money laundering norms stump jewellery sector Dealers with turnover of Rs 2 crore and above covered; industry says threshold too low The central government has notified the money laundering rules for the gems and jewellery sector with immediate effect. Now, any entity deals in precious metals, precious stones, or other high-value goods and has a turnover of Rs 2 crore or more in a financial year will be covered under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA, 2002). The limit of Rs 2 crore would be calculated on the basis of the previous year’s turnover, said the notification. The directorate general of goods and service tax intelligence has been appointed under the Act. Sources said the government’s move to apply the PMLA to the jewellery sector was a fallout of income-tax raids on jewellers soon after demonetisation last November, when it was found that they sold gold and jewellery at a huge premium and accepted old currency notes as payment. The notification, issued on Augus…

Confusion over branded food GST

Confusion over branded food GST The GST Council's statement over the weekend on applying tax on branded food items has left most of the trade confused.

Even though the Council has not changed the rates on food -0 per cent on unbranded stuff and 5 per cent on brands -many small traders who didn't levy GST earlier said they could come under the 5 per cent slab after the clarification.

While they predicted some increase in consumer prices, large players said they can absorb GST in many ways and keep prices steady.

"Trade is confused and hence on behalf of our chamber, we have asked our members to go ahead and charge 5 per cent GST," said Sushil Sureka, general secretary of the Ahilya Chamber of Commerce and Industry in Indore.

The statement clarifying the application of GST came after some businesses were found deregistering their brands and selling under corporate brand name without paying tax, after the Council exempted unbranded food from the new all-encompassing indirec…