Skip to main content

Inter-company deposits between sister-subsidiaries not deemed dividend under domestic law

In KIIC Investment Company (Taxpayer),  the Taxpayer was a Mauritius-based investment company, holding substantial interest in Indian companies, I Co 1, I Co 2 and indirectly, in I Co 3. During the tax years under consideration, I Co 1 had placed Inter Corporate Deposits (ICDs)  with I Co 2 and advanced amounts to I Co 3.  The Indian Tax Authority treated both the ICDs and advances  as deemed dividend under the ITL, taxable in the hands of the Taxpayer, being common shareholder in both the parties to the ICD/ advance.

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) observed that deemed dividend provision of the ITL should be strictly interpreted since it taxes dividend on an artificial basis.  Based on the board resolution/ financial statements of I Co1 and terms of ICD agreement between I Co 1 and I Co2, the Tribunal held that the amount advanced by I Co 1 to I Co 2, is in the nature of a deposit and not a loan. Hence, such amounts cannot be taxed in the hands of the Taxpayer as deemed dividends under the ITL.  However, the Tribunal did not accept the alternate contention of the Taxpayer to the effect that ICD is not taxable as “dividend” under the Treaty. The Tribunal observed that where an amount is regarded as “deemed dividend” under the ITL, the same would also qualify as dividend under the provisions of the Treaty. Basis this, the amount paid by I Co1 to I Co 2 would qualify as dividend under the Treaty, subject to taxation at a lower rate of 5%, instead of the rate of 42.23% as computed by the Tax Authority. 

Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/MumbaiTrideemed/%24FILE/MumbaiTrideemed.pdf

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

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more