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

RBI minutes show MPC members flagged upside risks to inflation

RBI minutes show MPC members flagged upside risks to inflation Concerns about economic growth and easing inflation prompted five of the six monetary policy committee (MPC) members to call for a cut in the repo rate, but most warned that prices could start accelerating, show the minutes of the panel’s last meeting, released on Wednesday. The comments reflected a tone of caution and flagged upside risks to inflation from farm loan waivers, rise in food prices, especially vegetables, price revisions withheld ahead of the goods and services tax, implementation of house rent allowance under the 7th pay commission and fading of favourable base effect, among others. On 2 August, the panel chose to cut the repurchase rate—the rate at which the central bank infuses liquidity in the banking system—by 25 basis points to 6%. One basis point is one-hundredth of a percentage point. Pami Dua, professor at the Delhi School of Economics, wrote that her analysis showed “a fading economic growth outlook, as …

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…

Differential Tax Levy under GST: Food Firms May De-Register Trademarks

Differential Tax Levy under GST:Food Firms May De-Register Trademarks The government’s decision to charge an enhanced tax rate on trademark food brands is leading several rice, wheat and cereal manufacturers to consider de-registering their product trademarks. Irked by the June 28 central government notification fixing a 5 per cent goods and services tax (GST) rate on food items packaged in unit containers and bearing registered brand names, the industry has made several representations to the government to reconsider the differential tax levy, which these players say is creating an unlevel playing field within these highly-competitive and low-margin industries. Sources say that the move has affected the packaged rice industry the hardest and allowed the un-registered market leaders, India Gate and Daawat, to gain advantage as compared to other registered brands such as Kohinoor and Lal Qilla. Smaller players are even more worried with this enhanced rate of tax (against the otherwise …