TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 476X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AT:- Levy has been introduced w.e.f. 01st April, 2020 by amendment of the Finance Act, 2016 vide the Finance Act, 2020 and is being levied on the entities that do not have a PE in India. Since it is the applicant s case that it does not have a PE in India, it would be liable to pay tax under the new levy. However, according to the applicant, any further payment would result in double taxation. Revenue submitted that, it has no desire or authority of collecting the EL from the Applicant in respect of the income on which income tax has been paid by the Applicant either as advance tax or as TDS made by its customer banks in India during the pendency of this writ petition. - This Court is of the view that the respondent no.3 can have no ob ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... licant. However, the applicant s case before this Court is that it is not liable to tax in India as its core business is carried outside India and none of the activities which are carried out in India result in the existence of either a permanent establishment ( PE ) or the payment received by it can be characterized as Royalty. A new levy viz Equalisation Levy has been introduced w.e.f. 01st April, 2020 by amendment of the Finance Act, 2016 vide the Finance Act, 2020 and is being levied on the entities that do not have a PE in India. Since it is the applicant s case that it does not have a PE in India, it would be liable to pay tax under the new levy. However, according to the applicant, any further payment would result in double tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t were to succeed in the writ petition on the PE issue, it may be subject to penalty for non-payment of EL for the period of pendency of the writ petition. In this respect. it is submitted that in the event the Applicant succeeds in the writ petition to persuade this court to hold that it does not have a PE in India, then it would be eligible to receive a refund of income tax along with statutory interest. At the same time. it would be liable to pay EL with statutory interest for the period of delay in payment of EL. The Respondent herein being bound by the Ruling of the AAR is not seeking payment of EL, the question of imposition of penalty is premature and academic. xxx xxx xxx 14. The respondent would also like to draw attenti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
