Skip to main content

Google, Yahoo ad payments not taxable in India


In a crucial decision that will go a long way in determining the taxability of online advertisements, a Calcutta Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the payment to websites such as Google, Yahoo etc for online advertisement are not liable to tax in India.

The websites' presence in a location cannot be construed as fixed place constituting a Permanent Establishment (PE), the ITAT order held. Under the rules governing cross-border taxation, having the presence of a PE in a location is an ideal condition for any tax regime to claim tax.

The ITAT, in its order on Friday morning, observed that the web server located in the tax jurisdiction can be construed as PE but in this case the servers are outside India and therefore the tax claim based on having a PE in India could not be made.

The ITAT order authored by George Mathan and Pramod Kumar was on an appeal filed by Right Florist who had paid about Rs 35 lakh for its advertisements on Yahoo and Google websites during 2005-06.

The Income-tax department pulled up the company for not deducting Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) as the former claimed that the amount paid to Google and Yahoo were liable to tax in India. The tax officer held that the taxpayer company should have approached him for determining whether tax should have been withheld in India while making payments to Google and Ireland.

However, the first appellate authority, Commissioner, Income-Tax (Appeal) accepted the company's stand that since these websites are not the PE in India, the company was not required to pay tax or withhold tax in India.

The ITAT, the second appellate authority, observed that the PE as defined in the Income-Tax Act is inadequate to cover the variety of issues arising in the contemporary times marked by ever increasing volume of business taking place in the virtual world. ITAT observed that the search engine's presence in a location, other than the location of its effective place of management, is only on the internet or by way of a website, which is not a form of physical presence.

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/internet/Ad-payments-to-Google-Yahoo-not-taxable-in-India-I-T-tribunal/articleshow/19524802.cms

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more