Advertisement revenue received by SET Satellite not taxable in India

Budget to be presented on 16th March FM issues Advisory to CESTAT to ensure that orders are issued by Benches on conclusion of arguments and in complicated matters orders should be issued within 30 days Madras High Court stays levy of service tax on lawyers economic growth slows to 6.9 per cent Sunil Kumar appointed as Chief Secretary of Chattisgarh Amarchand Mangaldas to open offices in Chennai Ahmedabad & Pune US closes its embassy in Syria Sudha Sharma appointed as Member of CBDT Rupee hits a high of 48.73 against Dollar Laxman Das is Officiating Chairman of CBDT Tariff Value for import of gold is 556 & for silver 1067 & for Brass Scrap 4078 & for poppy seeds 2205-Customs Non-Tariff Notification No. 10 Fused Silica is classifiable under Tariff Item 32074000-Customs Circular No.3 Additional Commisssioner of Income Tax HA Siddiqui sentenced to 4 years imprisonment for accepting bribe of Rs 1 Lakh by CBI Court in Delhi HC upholds levy of service tax on booking of flats-The explanation which was inserted by the Finance Act of 2010 clearly brings within the fold of taxable service a construction service provided by the builder to a buyer where there is an intended sale between the parties whether before, during or after construction Authority for Advance Ruling rules super concentrates shall be classified as products of the chemical industry under heading 3824 90 90 of Customs Tariff Anti dumping duty imposed on import of Morpholine from China European Union & USA Anti dumping duty imposed on import of Geogrid/Geostrips/ Geostraps made of polyester or Glass fiber in all its forms from Refund of Anti-Dumping Duty (Paid in Excess of Actual Margin of Dumping) Rules, 2012 notified-Customs Non-Tariff Notification No.5 Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Amendment Rules, 2012-Customs Non-Tariff Notification No.6 Safeguard duty at the rate of 10% ad valorem notified on import of Phthalic anhydride, falling under tariff item 2917 35 00-Customs SG Notification No.1 Customs duty on import of Gold, Silver, Cut & Polished Diamonds hiked Customs duty to be charged at the rate of 2 per cent of Tariff Value on gold and 6 per cent of Tariff Value on silver Tariff Value for import of gold & silver notified-Customs Non-Tariff Notification No.3 Anti-dumping duty on imports ofSilk fabrics 20-100 gms per metre, falling under heading 5007 originating in, or exported from, China-CustomsTariff Notification No. 2 Anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of Nylon Filament Yarn, falling under Chapter 54 ,originating in, or exported from, China, Chinese Taipei, Malaysia, Thailand and Korea RP-Customs TariffNotification No.3 Anti-dumping duty imposed on import of Phosphoric Acid of allgrades and all concentrations (excluding Agriculture/Fertilizer Grade) ,falling under tariff item 28092010, originating in, or exported from, Israel and Taiwan-Customs Tariff Notification No.4 Anti-dumping duty on imports of Cellophane Transparent Film , falling under Chapter 39 , originating in, or exported from, China-Customs TariffNotification No.5 Anti-dumping duty onimports of Saccharin, falling under Chapters 29, 30, 33 and 38 ,originating in, or exported from, China-Customs Tariff Notification No.7 Special Bench of ITAT rules the appellant is not entitled to set off carry forward business loss against the long term capital gain arising on sale of land used for the purpose business ITAT rules Long Term and Short Term gains / losses on sale of equity shares under Portfolio Management Scheme is business income and not Capital Gains HC rules the opinion of the AO may have been legally erroneous but this cannot be a ground for initiation of re-assessment proceedings Anti-dumping duty on ‘Caustic Soda’, originating in, or exported from, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Japan, USA & France-Customs Tariff Notification No.1 Cost Accountants can issue Certificates for the purpose of refund of 4% CVD-Customs Circular No.1 Customs duty on import from ASEAN nations lowered- Customs Tariff Notification No.127 deeper tariff cut on import from Malaysia notified- Customs Tariff Notification No.128 deeper tariff cuts on import from Korea notified- Customs Tariff Notification No.123 deeper tariff cuts on import from Srilanka & Pakistan under SAFTA notified- Customs Tariff Notification No.125 Schedule of Rates for Service Tax Refund to Exporters notified in supersession of Notification No.17/2009-Service Tax Notification No. 52 Customs duty on import of several products from specified countries lowered-Customs Tariff Notification No.113 Anti-dumping duty on ‘Sodium Hydrosulphite (SHS)’, falling under headings 2831 and 2832 , originating in, or exported from, China PR- Customs Tariff Notification No.111 CBEC specifies documents required for Registration of ServiceTax Customs duty on import of 532 Products from Singapore lowered-many products exempted from duty-Customs Tariff Notification No. 106 Government allows Rebate of excise duty on export of goods to Nepal under ARE-1 Procedure w.e.f. 1st March 2012-Central Excise Non-Tariff Notification No.24

JUDGMENTS

CENTRAL EXCISE

CUSTOMS

exchange rate

SERVICE TAX

INCOME TAX

VAT

FINANCE ACTS

FINANCE BILLS

EOU STPI

SEZ

DGFT

RBI

NTT

RESOURCES

Email | Print

Advertisement revenue received by SET Satellite not taxable in India

AIT News Network

MUMBAI. Bombay High Court vide a ruling dated 22^nd August AIT-2008-297-HC has set aside ITAT Ruling AIT-2007-163-ITAT and held that 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.

HC has held as under:

(1) Considering the CBTD Circular No. 742 it would be fair and reasonable that the taxable income is computed at 10% of the gross profits. In the instant case in so far as marketing services are concerned by the arm’s length principle what has been paid is more than 10% as can be seen from the order of CIT(A). This was not disputed by the Revenue in its Appeal before the ITAT.

(2) The only contention advanced and which found favour with the Tribunal was that the advertisement revenue received by the assessee was also income liable to tax in India. The CIT(A) relied upon Circular No. 23 of 1969. That Circular read with Article 7(1) would result in holding that advertisement revenue received by the appellant are not taxable in India as long as the treaty and the Circular stands.

Appeal filed by the Appellant herein is allowed and the order of the ITAT is set aside. 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. The order CIT is restored except to the extent that it has said that it cannot interfere because the Appellant had paid the tax. That part is set aside.

The Facts were as under:

According to the Appellant it is a resident of Singapore and has business activities in India. The Appellant through its dependent agent in the form of SET India (P) Limited, is carrying on marketing activities in India for advertisement slots by canvassing advertisements in India. It filed its return of income on 30^th December, 1999 declaring its income at Nil. .On 5^th March, 2001 they filed revised return of income declaring business income of Rs.13,58,43.976/-. Along with the return it was submitted that it did not have any tax liability in India as it did not have a permanent establishment and that its dependent agent was remunerated on an arm's length basis. As this income from various activities had been assessed to tax in the hands of SET India, could not be further assessment of income in the hands of the Appellant on account of the said activities. Reliance was placed on Circular No.23 dated July, 23, 1969 issued by the CBDT. Whilst filing revised return on March 5, 2001 it computed its taxable income at Rs.13,58,43,976/-as per the formula prescribed in the CBTD Circular No.742 without prejudice to its contention that they do not have any income which is taxable in India. Whilst filing its revised returns it was its contention that there was no income which was assessable to tax in India. The Assessment Officer by his order dated 20^th March, 2002 assessed the Assessee’s income which included income from marketing fees as also advertisement collected from India and further the subscription fees received from cable operators of its depended agent. Consequent to this order, as there was no deduction at source it imposed interest under Section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act. The Appellant being aggrieved preferred an Appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax.

The Appellant Authority, held that distribution rights it was held is a commercial right which is distinct and different from a copyright and consequently there was no question to payment of royalty as had been held by the A.O. and the income belong to SET India which cannot be subject to tax in the hands of the Appellants. Accordingly, the A.O. was directed to delete the portion of Rs. 1,27,89,154/- earned by Set India while computing the taxable income of the Appellant.

In Appeal, Assessee Appellants have raised the following questions of law:

"(a). Whether the activities of the non-independent agent under para 8 of Article 5 Would be treated as the activities of the "deemed" permanent establishment and thereby the amount taxable under para 2 of Article 7 in respect of the deemed permanent establishment would be the income attributable in these activities?

(b) Whether-having taxed the agent on the fair value of the, activities in India, the same could be taxed all over again in the hands of the assessee as being income attributable to the deemed permanent establishment?

(c) Whether the assessee is debarred from contending in appeal that there was no income liable to tax as a matter of law solely on account of the fact that, it had at some stage surrendered on ad hoc basis, a sum for taxation as being liable to tax in India, without prejudice to its claim that its income is not liable to tax in India.

(Click here for full text of Ruling AIT-2008-297-HC)

Related News: