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

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more