Section 9 and circular 7/2009
This query is : Resolved
28 October 2009
Can anyone please explain the effect of latest circular 7/2009 withdrawing old circular of income tax?
30 October 2009
The Central Board of Direct Tax (CBDT), the apex direct taxes body, has withdrawn a 40-year old circular, which has the potential to Increase the tax that India can claim on a foreign company that has operations in India through a ‘business connection’.
This could impact, for example, foreign companies that engage business process outsourcing (BPO) units in India. There are over 300 foreign IT-BPO companies in India, and they account for about 35% of the $50-billion revenue of the industry.
However, it is not just captives of foreign companies that could be impacted by CBDT’s current move. Now, the tax authorities would find it easier to tax a portion of the income of the parent company arising from the activities of the BPO, even if that income is not generated in India.
This flows from Section 9 of the Income-Tax Act, which says, “income accruing or arising directly or indirectly, through or from any business connection in India, shall be deemed to be income accruing or arising in India, and hence, where the person entitled to such income is a non-resident, it will be includable in his total incomeâ€. A BPO can be treated as a business connection.
The circular No 23 of 1969 offered an escape route from falling within the ambit of Section 9 to non-resident companies with BPO units in India. The circular, which now stands withdrawn, said, among other things, “if the agent’s commission fully represents the value of the profits attributable to his service, it should, prima facie, extinguish the assessmentâ€.
This portion of the circular had been interpreted to mean that if a foreign company pays for its BPO services as if these services were rendered by a third party, that is, at ‘arms-length’, then there is no cause for assessment.
With this illustration now being withdrawn, the path is open for the tax authority to lay claim to the income of the parent deemed to arise from the activity of its business connection, that is, the BPO, arms-length transaction or not. “This would come as a major setback to the IT / ITeS sector which will have to re-evaluate their business model in absence of this circular,†said Ernst & Young partner Amitabh Singh.
The CBDT, however, is very clear about the intention behind the withdrawal of the circular. An I-T department official said the circular had opened a can of worms as it was being misused by foreign companies. It was only intended to provide clarity of what the government’s intention behind Section 9 of the I-T Act and foreign companies were taking shelter behind it to avoid tax.
Withdrawing the circular, the CBDT said: “It is noticed that interpretation of the circular by some of the taxpayers to claim relief is not in accordance with the provisions of the Section 9 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, or the intention behind the issuance of the circularâ€.
In fact, even when the circular was in force, the I-T department has argued in appeals, references and petitions that the circular would be interpreted to allow relief to the taxpayer, which is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 9 or the intention behind the issue of the circular.
The CBDT has not just withdrawn the circular 23 of 1969, but also other two related circulars — No. 163 of 1975 and No. 786 of 2000. Withdrawal of circular No. 786 will hit the exporting community hard, as it dealt with taxability of commission that an Indian exporter received/secured outside the country for carrying out the services of an overseas agent.
Withdrawal of the circular No. 23 will also strengthen the hands of the I-T department in the Sony Entertainment Television, Singapore, case. The case is to come up for hearing in the Supreme Court soon. In this case, the Mumbai tribunal had held that even if arms-length remuneration had been paid to the agent, the non-resident would still be assessed in respect of any additional profits attributable to the dependent agent having permanent establishment. The high court, however, reversed it, basing its decision on circular No 23.
This could impact, for example, foreign companies that engage business process outsourcing (BPO) units in India. There are over 300 foreign IT-BPO companies in India, and they account for about 35% of the $50-billion revenue of the industry.
However, it is not just captives of foreign companies that could be impacted by CBDT’s current move. Now, the tax authorities would find it easier to tax a portion of the income of the parent company arising from the activities of the BPO, even if that income is not generated in India.
This flows from Section 9 of the Income-Tax Act, which says, “income accruing or arising directly or indirectly, through or from any business connection in India, shall be deemed to be income accruing or arising in India, and hence, where the person entitled to such income is a non-resident, it will be includable in his total incomeâ€. A BPO can be treated as a business connection.
The circular No 23 of 1969 offered an escape route from falling within the ambit of Section 9 to non-resident companies with BPO units in India. The circular, which now stands withdrawn, said, among other things, “if the agent’s commission fully represents the value of the profits attributable to his service, it should, prima facie, extinguish the assessmentâ€.
This portion of the circular had been interpreted to mean that if a foreign company pays for its BPO services as if these services were rendered by a third party, that is, at ‘arms-length’, then there is no cause for assessment.
With this illustration now being withdrawn, the path is open for the tax authority to lay claim to the income of the parent deemed to arise from the activity of its business connection, that is, the BPO, arms-length transaction or not. “This would come as a major setback to the IT / ITeS sector which will have to re-evaluate their business model in absence of this circular,†said Ernst & Young partner Amitabh Singh.
The CBDT, however, is very clear about the intention behind the withdrawal of the circular. An I-T department official said the circular had opened a can of worms as it was being misused by foreign companies. It was only intended to provide clarity of what the government’s intention behind Section 9 of the I-T Act and foreign companies were taking shelter behind it to avoid tax.
Withdrawing the circular, the CBDT said: “It is noticed that interpretation of the circular by some of the taxpayers to claim relief is not in accordance with the provisions of the Section 9 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, or the intention behind the issuance of the circularâ€.
In fact, even when the circular was in force, the I-T department has argued in appeals, references and petitions that the circular would be interpreted to allow relief to the taxpayer, which is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 9 or the intention behind the issue of the circular.
The CBDT has not just withdrawn the circular 23 of 1969, but also other two related circulars — No. 163 of 1975 and No. 786 of 2000. Withdrawal of circular No. 786 will hit the exporting community hard, as it dealt with taxability of commission that an Indian exporter received/secured outside the country for carrying out the services of an overseas agent.
Withdrawal of the circular No. 23 will also strengthen the hands of the I-T department in the Sony Entertainment Television, Singapore, case. The case is to come up for hearing in the Supreme Court soon. In this case, the Mumbai tribunal had held that even if arms-length remuneration had been paid to the agent, the non-resident would still be assessed in respect of any additional profits attributable to the dependent agent having permanent establishment. The high court, however, reversed it, basing its decision on circular No 23.
You need to be the querist or approved CAclub expert to take part in this query .
Click here to login now
Click here to login now
Similar Resolved Queries
Unanswered Queries
- Is this income indian or foreign income?
- GST on export of services and Input Credit
- RCM applicability on Rent Paid by Registered Person to Unregistered Landlord for Residental Building
- ITC temporary reversal and reclaim
- Applicable TDS rate for sale of property in Nov 2024
- Inventory of finished goods
- GST ON EXPORT COMMISSION
- Should I report my US salary for January, February, March in Schedule FA?
- REGARDING 25 AS DATE OF PAYMENT AND DATE OF BOOKING
- Tds on building rent monthly
- Regarding Waiver of Interest levied u/s 50 of PGST/CGST Act
- Confusion around Form 26QB fields
- LAST YEAR 2022-23 ITC IN NEXT YEAR 2023-24 REPORITNG IN GSTR-9
- MIS MATCH OF INVOICE NUMBER
- IGST Credit-Show cause notice issued-confusion
- Issue of gst e invoice
- How to adjusted advances given or receipt
- Foreign vendor without PAN unable to to register due to non receipt of OTP on foreign number ?
- 133(6) DIN INVALID format error - ->WHERE TO REPLY 133(6) notice?
- Query for dubts
Trending Online Classes
CAclubindia
