India: GST guidelines, PE under treaty with Cyprus | KPMG | GLOBAL
close
Share with your friends

India: GST guidelines, PE under treaty with Cyprus

India: GST guidelines, PE under treaty with Cyprus

The KPMG member firm in India has prepared reports about the following tax developments (read more at the hyperlinks provided below).

1000

Related content

  • Minimum alternate tax (MAT) credit: The Delhi Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal held that the minimum alternate tax (MAT) credit is allowed inclusive of surcharge and education “cess” (the surcharge levy imposed for various governmental functions including education). The amount of tax includes both components of tax and surcharge. The case is: Consolidated Securities Ltd. Read an August 2018 report [PDF 724 KB]

  • Goods and services tax (GST): The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs issued GST guidance concerning: (1) supplies received from an unregistered supplier; and (2) a special procedure for completing GST migration. Read an August 2018 report [PDF 709 KB]

  • Advance knowledge of tax liability is factor in determining penalty: The High Court of Delhi dismissed an appeal on the simultaneous levy of penalties, with the court observing that advance knowledge of the tax liability was a factor to consider in determining the penalty liability. Read an August 2018 report [PDF 562 KB]

  • Permanent establishment threshold period under India-Cyprus income tax treaty: The Delhi Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal held that the taxpayer did not constitute an installation permanent establishment (PE) under Article 5(2)(g) of the India-Cyprus income tax treaty given the 12-month threshold period was not met. The tribunal observed that preparatory work relating to a contract cannot be counted on calculating the threshold period. The case is: Bellsea Ltd. Read an August 2018 report [PDF 562 KB]

  • Exemption notification to be interpreted strictly: The Constitutional Bench (five-judge bench) of the Supreme Court held that: (1) exemption from tax guidance is to be interpreted strictly and the burden to prove its applicability is on the taxpayer; (2) any ambiguity in the exemption guidance must be interpreted in favour of the tax department; and (3) prior decisions to the contrary are overturned. The case is: Dilip Kumar and Company & Ors. Read an August 2018 report [PDF 700 KB]

The KPMG logo and name are trademarks of KPMG International. KPMG International is a Swiss cooperative that serves as a coordinating entity for a network of independent member firms. KPMG International provides no audit or other client services. Such services are provided solely by member firms in their respective geographic areas. KPMG International and its member firms are legally distinct and separate entities. They are not and nothing contained herein shall be construed to place these entities in the relationship of parents, subsidiaries, agents, partners, or joint venturers. No member firm has any authority (actual, apparent, implied or otherwise) to obligate or bind KPMG International or any member firm in any manner whatsoever. The information contained in herein is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavor to provide accurate and timely information, there can be no guarantee that such information is accurate as of the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. No one should act on such information without appropriate professional advice after a thorough examination of the particular situation. For more information, contact KPMG's Federal Tax Legislative and Regulatory Services Group at: + 1 202 533 4366, 1801 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20006.

Connect with us

 

Request for proposal

 

Submit