Intermediary service under rule 9 of place of provision rule
This query is : Resolved
02 December 2014
Do the service provided by BPOs and KPOs fall under the definition of Intermediary services for Rule 9 of place of provision rules?
02 December 2014
It will not fall under the rule 9 of Place of Provision rules, it will fall under the rule 3 of place of provision rules.
As per rules 3 place of provision will be Location of Receiver of Services
As per rules 3 place of provision will be Location of Receiver of Services
02 December 2014
Mr. kumar mukesh i think u r little confuse about rules,
BPO will be liable under rule 9.
rule 3 applicable only when if services not identified in rules 4 to 14.
BPO will be liable under rule 9.
rule 3 applicable only when if services not identified in rules 4 to 14.
02 December 2014
Mr. kumar mukesh i think u r little confuse about rules,
BPO will be liable under rule 9.
rule 3 applicable only when if services not identified in rules 4 to 14.
BPO will be liable under rule 9.
rule 3 applicable only when if services not identified in rules 4 to 14.
02 December 2014
Dear Mr. Hardik be clear when you provoke someone. Read the definition of Intermediary given under rule 2(f) of Place of provision rules 2012. It is reads as under “intermediary” means a broker, an agent or any other person, by whatever name called, who arranges or facilitates a provision of a service (hereinafter called the ‘main’ service) between two or more persons, but does not include a person who provides the main service on his account.;
The definition is exhaustive. Therefore in case of service receiver is located outside of India, then it will amount to Export of Services within the meaning given under rule 6A.
Further for your information, Read the ruling Delhi High Court in case Wipro Limited
The definition is exhaustive. Therefore in case of service receiver is located outside of India, then it will amount to Export of Services within the meaning given under rule 6A.
Further for your information, Read the ruling Delhi High Court in case Wipro Limited
03 December 2014
Mr. Kumarmukes case in delhi high court is related to keep documents for cenvat credit.
in that case there was no starting and ending point in relation to "contineous supply of service"
Here the situation is different.
So before giving advice to someone else you have to be clear.
In the case of BPO service provided is consider as main service.
Rule 9 100% applicable in this case.
in that case there was no starting and ending point in relation to "contineous supply of service"
Here the situation is different.
So before giving advice to someone else you have to be clear.
In the case of BPO service provided is consider as main service.
Rule 9 100% applicable in this case.
Message likes :
1 times
03 December 2014
Again i tell u refer case law of Wipro Ltd.
If u have any doubt...
If u have any doubt...
03 December 2014
Yes you correct that case was on issue of procedural aspect of the allowability of Refund of Service Tax on services used for the purpose of the Export of Services.
But forget to understand that in that case also Wipro was involved in providing BPO services for the service receiver located outside India.
The above BPO services was treated as Export of Services within the meaning of rule 6A of Service Tax Rules, 1994
I think this would be sufficient, if not, kindly quote any relevant case law
But forget to understand that in that case also Wipro was involved in providing BPO services for the service receiver located outside India.
The above BPO services was treated as Export of Services within the meaning of rule 6A of Service Tax Rules, 1994
I think this would be sufficient, if not, kindly quote any relevant case law
Message likes :
1 times
05 December 2014
thank you for the reply. we have a client who is providing engineering services in india to electricity companies. it is a 100% subsidiary of a japanese company. on the invoice only the name of indian subsidiary co. has been mentioned. all the payments are recd by the co. in their japanese account in BOTM bank in Yens. All the other details of japeanese co. have been mentioned on the invoice and nothing about the subsidiary co. but they are not charging service tax from their clients. they are of the opinion that this is import of srvices. but since they have a registered office in india, would this be an import???
05 December 2014
I am not getting you problem properly.
Clarify the following aspect.
1. Who is the service provider to Electricity Company (foreigner company or its subsidiary).
2. Who the service receiver.
Clarify the following aspect.
1. Who is the service provider to Electricity Company (foreigner company or its subsidiary).
2. Who the service receiver.
Message likes :
1 times
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
- REGARDING GST ON COMMERICIAL PROPERTY
- Is this income indian or foreign income?
- 15ca /15cb whose income tax login? remitter or nri seller's login?
- GST on export of services and Input Credit
- Regarding Documentation & Compliances for Opening of Unit of Pvt Ltd.
- TDS U/S. 194NF
- ITC temporary reversal and reclaim
- RCM applicability on Rent Paid by Registered Person to Unregistered Landlord for Residental Building
- Applicable TDS rate for sale of property in Nov 2024
- Donation Receipt u/s 80G
- MIS MATCH OF INVOICE NUMBER
- VERIFICATION OF REFUND RELATED
- GST Regis.
- ITC c/f from FY2022-23 to FY2023-24 entered the same in table 8C of GSTR9 of FY 2022-23, in FY23-24
- Late filling fees Demand by gst office
- IGST Credit-Show cause notice issued-confusion
- Short and Excess provision of expenses
- Issue of gst e invoice
- Interchangeable words in accounts
- Adjusted profit/Loss in the case of LLP and Pvt. Ltd.company
Trending Online Classes
CAclubindia
