the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the second reassessment proceedings were not validly initiated and thereby quashing the reassessment proceedings-the proceedings initiated by the AO for the second time under Section 147 is barred by limitation-even the proviso to Section 147 does not come into play on the facts of the case-AIT-2010-373-HC   Even if the goods belong to same entry, manufacture does take place if new identifiable/marketable goods known in market emerge due to operation conducted-the process of ironing applied to the stiched brassieres prior to their packing was a process incidental to the completion of the brassieres as a manufactured product-process of purification and filtration being incidental or ancillary to the manufacture of a marketable product, the Respondent was entitled to Modvat credit on the inputs involved-AIT-2010-370-HC   Larger Bench of CESTAT rules the Tribunal has ample power to condone the delay in filing the appeal including the one filed under section 35 E (4)-AIT-2010-372-CESTAT Corruption in IRS takes its toll-Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Dhananjay Kumar arrested by CBI in Mumbai-Joint Commissioner of Customs & Excise Hemant Kothikar also arrested by CBI     FM directs expediting of Cadre Restructuring in CBDT & CBEC      Tariff Value for import of Brass Scrap is 3924-Customs Non-Tariff Notification No. 78    Chief Justice of Gauhati High Court Justice Ranjan Gogoi to be Chief Justice of Punjab & Haryana High Court    Anti-dumping duty on imports of Acrylic  Fibre originating in, or exported from Japan and Belarus-Customs Tariff Notification No.85  Prescribing SION for new product “Propylene” under Chemical & Allied Products Group-DGFT PN 7    Inclusion of Finished Leather in the Focus Product Scheme of FTP-DGFT PN 6    Exchange Rate for imported goods is Rs 47.25 per US Dollar and Rs 60.35  per EURO-Exchange Rate for export goods is Rs 46.30 per US Dollar and Rs 58.70 per EURO-Customs Non-Tariff Notification No. 77-Click on Exchange Rate for details   Anti Dumping Duty under the Notification No.15/2007 is not applicable to Spandex Yarn (Elastomeric yarn)-Customs Circular No.30    Import of goods under Notification No.13/2010 for Commonwealth Games, 2010-Customs Circular No.31    Larger Bench of CESTAT rules charges towards pre-delivery inspection and after-sale-service by dealers from buyers of the cars to be included in the assessable value of cars for payment of excise duty-AIT-2010-366-CESTAT    merely because there was non accounting of goods, penalty was technical and inference of clandestine removal was not called for-AIT-2010-365-HC  ITAT rules provision for doubtful debts and provision for standard debts are to be taken into consideration for computation of book profit u/s. 115JB of the IT Act-AIT-2010-361-ITAT    HC rules slitting of aluminum foils into customized width, mounting the same on the printing machine and thereafter printing the necessary text thereon is covered for 80IB benefit as it  falls within the ambit of the term “produce”-AIT-2010-363-HC    Definitive Anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of Coumarin, originating in, or exported from China-Customs Tariff Notification No. 82   Special Bench of ITAT Ruling-where a forward contract is entered into by the assessee to sell the foreign currency at an agreed price at a future date falling beyond the last date of accounting period, the loss is incurred to the assessee on account of evaluation of the contract on the last date of the accounting period i.e. before the date of maturity of the forward contract-AIT-2010-355-ITAT-SB       
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