721.8 kB - Poledna | Boss | Kurer

affect the specific law that exempted their servicesfrom tax liability. The Tribunal asked the SpecialBench whether the amendment to the law affectedthe company's tax liability in India, and for an interpretationof the tax treaty regarding the taxabilityof services rendered outside of India.services in India was taxable. However, the SpecialBench was not asked to consider whether the employeesstayed for longer than 90 days or whethera permanent establishment was created; these questionswere left for the Tribunal to consider, withregard to the Special Bench's deliberations.The Special Bench considered whether the company'sincome in India took the form of fees for technicalservices and whether it was therefore affectedby the change in the law, as claimed by the Revenue.It concluded that the matter of the income beingfees for technical services was not addressed byeither the earlier Tribunal decision or the CIT(A),and did not factor into the tax officer's assessment,and therefore there was no reason to consider thecompany's income as such.The Special Bench then undertook an interpretationof the UK-India tax treaty with regard to theUN Model Convention brought up during the Tribunalproceedings. It found that the language ofthe treaty was sufficiently different from the UNmodel so as to distance it from the concept ofall business activities being taxed in the receivingcountry despite not being tied to the permanentestablishment there. The conclusion was that onlyincome attributable to the business carried out bythe permanent establishment can be taxed in thesource country.The judgment was delivered on May 13, 2013.http://www.itatonline.in:8080/itat/upload/785077208211983070913$5%5E1REFNOMicrosoft_Word_-_Clifford_Chance_-_Spl._bench__1.5_Space_.pdfIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal (Special Bench):Clifford Chance v. Asst. DIT (ITA 3021/MUM-2005)WESTERN EUROPEBelgiumThe European Court of Justice was asked for a preliminaryruling during proceedings at the MonsCourt of Appeal where a group of companies whohad submitted incomplete tax invoices to the Belgiumtax authority were appealing a decision thatprevented the suppliers from receiving a VAT refundand the receivers from deducting VAT. Thecompanies had subsequently provided additionalinformation which the tax authority had refusedfor being too late and deemed to be lacking value.The answers provided by the Special Bench produceda strong case for the company's assertion thatonly income resulting from employees providingThe Court of Appeal approached the ECJ for an interpretationof EU law regarding whether a MemberState can legally refuse to allow a taxpayer to92