Exchange Rate for imported goods is Rs 43.75 Per US Dollar and Rs 64.55 Per EURO-Exchange Rate for export is Rs 43.15 Per US Dollar and Rs 63.45 Per EURO-Customs Non-Tariff Notification No.102-Click on Exchange Rate for details         Party is over for Mumbai Customs-22 Customs Officers of Mumbai Airport arrested while partying at Khandala with 11 Bar dancers-Senior Officers decide to take disciplinary action against them for attending the Party without their permission    Narayana Moorthy & Shaikh Naimuddin join as new Members of CBDT   HC rules settlement expenses paid by the assessee fall within the provision of Section 37 (1) of Income Tax Act- decision to pay PBC settlement expenses for an early exit from PBC's premises falls squarely within the meaning of expression 'commercial expediency' when, seen from the perspective of the assessee's business-AIT-2008-300-HC     Freight income earned by the assessee on account of transportation of cargo in the international traffic by ships operated by other enterprises under slot chartering arrangement would be taxable only in the state of residence and consequently, such income would be exempt from taxation under the Indian Income-tax Law-AIT-2008-299-ITAT     Special Bench of ITAT rules Interest u/s 234 D is chargeable from assessment year 2004-05 and it could not be charged for earlier years even though regular assessments for these years are framed after 1st June. 2003 or the refund was granted for those years after the said date-AIT-2008-297-ITAT     SC rules for a hardship to be `undue' it must be shown that the particular burden to have to observe or perform the requirement is out of proportion to the nature of the requirement itself, and the benefit which the applicant would derive from compliance with it-AIT-2008-298-SC                   Bombay High Court sets aside ITAT Ruling and holds advertisement revenue received by the SET Satellite (Singapore) Pte Ltd are not taxable in India as long as the DTAA and the Circular No. 23 of 1969 stands-Merely because tax on income was paid for some assessment years would not estop the assesses from contending that its income is not liable to tax-AIT-2008-297-HC-Click on the link below for details       Services rendered by Sports Persons, Umpires and Referees, Coaches and Trainers, Team Physicians and Physiotherapists, Event Managers, Commentators,Anchors, and Sports Columnists. in relation to the sports activities subjected to TDS at the rate of 10 per cent as "Professional Services" under Section 194J-Income Tax Notification No. 88     Deemed export benefits are available on supply of goods to Mega Power Projects if power procurement from such projects has been tied up through ICB procedure OR if ICB procedure has been followed by such projects at Engineering and procurement contract (EPC) stage-DGFT Circular No.29     SC rules Agricultural Market Committee is not entitled to exemption under Section 10(20) of the 1961 Act after insertion of the said Explanation vide Finance Act, 2002 w.e.f. 1.4.03-AIT-2008-292-SC     SC rules Insofar as the under-valuation on account of advances received but not included in the assessable value is concerned, suffice would it be to say that the point is concluded against the Revenue-AIT-2008-294-SC       ITAT rules the amount of Rs 1.15 Crore received by CA Firm as compensation for withdrawing from Deloitte Haskins & Sells Partnership is chargeable to tax as revenue receipt-AIT-2008-288-ITAT     HC rules there was no transfer of a right in property as contemplated under Section 2 (47) of Income Tax Act when the agreement for sale dated 24.06.1977 was substituted by the collaboration agreement dated 06.10.1981 and the agreement to sell dated 06.10.1981-There was no interest, much less, any right transferred in the property in favour of SSPL by the assessees -AIT-2008-287-HC        Bad News for tax evaders and litigants-Larger Bench of SC overrules Virtual Soft Systems Ltd Ruling and rules penalty for concealment of income under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act can be levied if the returned income is a loss- Explanation 4 to Section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act is clarificatory and not substantive-AIT-2008-286-SC-Click on the link below for details       SC rules service tax show cause notices issued to availers of service of transport operators invoking section 73 are not maintainable -AIT-2008-285-SC      Cost Inflation Index for 2008-09 is 582-Income Tax Notification No.86     Tax paid by the employer in respect of salaries paid to the employees is "salary" under Rule 3, for the purpose of computing the value of perquisites in respect of rent-free accommodation provided to the expatriate employees-AIT-2008-284-ITAT    CESTAT was not correct in law in upholding the imposition of 100% penalty on the Assessee in terms of Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944-AIT-2008-282-HC         The activities of liaison offices are preparatory and auxiliary in character and, therefore, cannot be treated as permanent establishment of the assessee in India-AIT-2008-281-ITAT     Customs duty on import from Cambodia and Tanzania lowered-Customs Tariff Notification No.96       Liability to pay 50% of the aggregated customs duty on the goods cleared by 100 % EOU to DTA- SC rules CBEC Circular No. 42 of 1997 cannot take away the effect of Notification No. 2/95-AIT-2008-277-SC    HC rules the cash loan being not in excess of Rs.20,000/- from each person, penalty could not be levied under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act-AIT-2008-270-HC      No TDS liability on Trust- if its status was that of an individual then, the provisions of Section 194A of the Act could not be applicable-AIT-2008-269-HC        
Services  |  Subscribe  |  Contact Us  |   Feedback   |  E-mail  |  News |  Home
JUDGMENTS
CENTRAL EXCISE
CUSTOMS
SERVICE TAX
INCOME TAX
VAT
FINANCE ACTS
FINANCE BILLS
EOU STPI
SEZ
DGFT
RBI
NTT
RESOURCES


    
Email | Print

Referral fee received by Cushman & Wakefield (S) Pte Ltd not taxable in India

AIT News Network

NEW DELHI. Authority for Advance Rulings(Income Tax) vide a significant ruling AIT-2008-216-AAR has ruled that the referral fee received by Cushman & Wakefield, (S) Pte. Ltd. from Cushman & Wakefield India Pvt. Ltd., in terms of the referral agreement dated January 1, 2005 would not be taxable in India having regard to the provisions of the Income Tax Act and the provisions of the DTAA between India and Singapore either under the head business income, or royalty income or income by way of FTS.

Further, the referral fee received by Cushman & Wakefield(S) Pte. Ltd., from Cushman & Wakefield India Pvt. Ltd. in terms of the referral agreement dated January 1, 2005 is not liable for deduction of tax at source in the hands of the payer.

The applicant does not have a ‘business connection’ in India under the provisions of the Act.

The applicant does not have a Permanent Establishment in India in having regard to the provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Singapore by virtue of its agreement with Cushman & Wakefield India Pvt. Ltd.

The applicant, a foreign company incorporated and based in Singapore, offers a full range of real estate services to its local and international clients.  Cushman & Wakefield India Pvt. Ltd.(in short, CWI) is, a wholly owned subsidiary of Cushman & Wakefield Mauritius, which, in turn, is a subsidiary of Cushman & Wakefield, Asia. The applicant is, as per averment, engaged in the business of rendering services in connection with acquisition, sales and dealings in real estate and other services such as advisory & research facilities management, project management etc. in the field of real estate. The applicant states that it has also developed certain international client relationships and in accordance with the global policy, various offices provide referral services to other Cushman and Wakefield (C&W) offices, wherein one C&W Office would refer client to other C&W office, depending on the requirements of the clients. In respect of such referrals, as per the applicant, each serving C&W Company is liable to pay a ‘referral fee’ to referring group company in accordance with the international fees sharing rules of C&W group. In consonance with this very general policy, the applicant entered into an agreement dated 1st January, 2005 with CWI, as per which, the applicant CWS shall refer/recommend the potential customers, desirous of obtaining real estate consultancy and associated services in India, to CWI.  As per the terms of the agreement, CWI will pay the applicant a percentage of amount charged by the applicant (CWS) on the referred customers as referral commission after it (CWI) has realized in full the amount from the customers. Further, withholding of tax on the referral commission paid, has to be deducted by CWI. As mentioned in the statement of facts, the applicant is neither involved in persuading the customers to avail services of CWI, nor in negotiating or collecting fees charged by CWI from the customers referred to by CWS. It has further been stated that they (CWS) simply refer the potential customers for real estate transactions and give some details (locations etc.) about the property in question.

The applicant sought rulings from the Authority on the following questions :-

i.          Whether the referral fee received by Cushman & Wakefield, (S) Pte. Ltd. (the applicant) from Cushman & Wakefield India Pvt. Ltd., in terms of the referral agreement dated January 1, 2005 is liable to be taxed in India in accordance with the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) read with Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Singapore?

ii.         Whether the referral fee received by Cushman & Wakefield(S) Pte. Ltd., from Cushman & Wakefield India Pvt. Ltd. in terms of the referral agreement dated January 1, 2005 is liable for deduction of tax at source in the hands of the payer?

iii.        Whether the applicant can be said to have a business connection in India under the provisions of section 9(1)(i) of the Indian Income-tax Act (‘Act’) by virtue of its agreement with Cushman & Wakefield India Pvt. Ltd.?

iv.         If the answer to question (iii) above is in the affirmative, whether the whole or any part (if yes what proportion) of referral fee could be attributed to India in terms of explanation to Section 9(1)(i) of the Act and would constitute income accruing or arising in India?

v.          If the referral fee is held to be taxable, whether the same can be classified as Royalty under section 9(1)(vi), fee for technical services under section 9(1)(vii), or “income from business or profession” under the Act read with the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Singapore and what is the rate of tax applicable?

vi.         Whether the applicant can be said to have a Permanent Establishment in India in having regard to the provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Singapore by virtue of its agreement with Cushman & Wakefield India Pvt. Ltd.?

vii.        If the answer to 6 above is in affirmative, whether the whole or any part thereof (if so what part) can be attributed to the Permanent Establishment?

(Click here for full text of Ruling AIT-2008-216-AAR )

Related News:

 

  Copyright © 2006 allindiantaxes.com | All rights reserved
website designing India & CMS development: Softlogics & Developments