+ All Categories
Home > Documents > India Tax Konnect - KPMG · 2020-06-11 · INR250 crore during Financial Year (FY) 2016-17 are...

India Tax Konnect - KPMG · 2020-06-11 · INR250 crore during Financial Year (FY) 2016-17 are...

Date post: 05-Aug-2020
Category:
Upload: others
View: 1 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend
13
© 2018 KPMG, an Indian Registered Partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 1 India Tax Konnect February 2018 Contents International tax 2 Corporate tax 3 Transfer pricing 7 Indirect tax 9 Editorial The Union Budget 2018-19 holds special significance being the first Budget post the implementation of Goods and Services Tax (GST) in July 2017. After a long journey of economic reforms, amid subdued economic growth, challenging fiscal situation and farm distress, the Budget endeavours to continue its focus on poverty, rural economy, healthcare, education, infrastructure and digitalisation towards a modern, strong and confident India. While the Budget did not offer anything special to individuals, domestic companies with a turnover upto INR250 crore during Financial Year (FY) 2016-17 are extended the benefit of concessional corporate tax rate of 25 per cent. To reduce economic distortions and curb erosion of tax base, taxation of Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) has been reintroduced at 10 per cent on gains on the equity shares and specified units. However, gains until 31 January 2018 have been grandfathered. The government continues to take steps to align the domestic tax laws with Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) Action Plans. Accordingly, the ambit of ‘business connection’ relevant for taxation of non-residents under domestic income-tax provisions is widened. To bring certainty on the applicability of Income Computation and Disclosure Standards (ICDS) in the wake of recent judicial pronouncements, several amendments and new sections have been introduced in the Act retrospectively with reference to applicability of the ICDS notification to make them fully legitimate and operational. Also a new scheme of scrutiny assessment is being introduced to bring in greater transparency and accountability. It proposes faceless assessment by eliminating an interface between the taxpayer and tax authorities and brings in team based assessments. On the international tax front, the Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) in the case of GEA Refrigeration Technologies GmbH held that capital gains arising from indirect transfer of shares of an Indian company on sale of shares of German company shall not be taxable in India. German company has derived its value substantially from its other companies whereas its value of assets in Indian company is a mere 5.40 per cent, far lower than the requirement of 50 per cent. Hence, it fails the test of deriving value substantially from the Indian company We at KPMG in India would like to keep you informed of the developments on the tax and regulatory front and its implications on the way you do business in India. We would be delighted to receive your suggestions on ways to make this Konnect more relevant.
Transcript
Page 1: India Tax Konnect - KPMG · 2020-06-11 · INR250 crore during Financial Year (FY) 2016-17 are extended the benefit of concessional corporate tax rate of 25 per cent. To reduce economic

© 2018 KPMG, an Indian Registered Partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 1

India Tax KonnectFebruary 2018

Contents

International tax 2

Corporate tax 3

Transfer pricing 7

Indirect tax 9

Editorial

The Union Budget 2018-19 holds special significance being the first Budget post the implementation of Goods and Services Tax (GST) in July 2017. After a long journey of economic reforms, amid subdued economic growth, challenging fiscal situation and farm distress, the Budget endeavours to continue its focus on poverty, rural economy, healthcare, education, infrastructure and digitalisation towards a modern, strong and confident India.

While the Budget did not offer anything special to individuals, domestic companies with a turnover uptoINR250 crore during Financial Year (FY) 2016-17 are extended the benefit of concessional corporate tax rate of 25 per cent. To reduce economic distortions and curb erosion of tax base, taxation of Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) has been reintroduced at 10 per cent on gains on the equity shares and specified units. However, gains until 31 January 2018 have been grandfathered.

The government continues to take steps to align the domestic tax laws with Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) Action Plans. Accordingly, the ambit of ‘business connection’ relevant for taxation of non-residents under domestic income-tax provisions is widened.

To bring certainty on the applicability of Income Computation and Disclosure Standards (ICDS) in the wake of recent judicial pronouncements, several amendments and new sections have been introduced in the Act retrospectively with reference to applicability of the ICDS notification to make them fully legitimate and operational. Also a new scheme of scrutiny assessment is being introduced to bring in greater transparency and accountability. It proposes faceless assessment by eliminating an interface between the taxpayer and tax authorities and brings in team based assessments.

On the international tax front, the Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) in the case of GEA Refrigeration Technologies GmbH held that capital gains arising from indirect transfer of shares of an Indian company on sale of shares of German company shall not be taxable in India. German company has derived its value substantially from its other companies whereas its value of assets in Indian company is a mere 5.40 per cent, far lower than the requirement of 50 per cent. Hence, it fails the test of deriving value substantially from the Indian company

We at KPMG in India would like to keep you informed of the developments on the tax and regulatory front and its implications on the way you do business in India. We would be delighted to receive your suggestions on ways to make this Konnect more relevant.

Page 2: India Tax Konnect - KPMG · 2020-06-11 · INR250 crore during Financial Year (FY) 2016-17 are extended the benefit of concessional corporate tax rate of 25 per cent. To reduce economic

© 2018 KPMG, an Indian Registered Partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 2

International taxDecisions

Capital gains arising from indirect transfer of shares of an Indian company on sale of shares of German company are not taxable in India

The applicant is a German company engaged in the business of industrial refrigeration. The applicant has extensive experience in the fields of the food and beverage industry, petroleum and gas, etc. The GEA group is one of the largest system providers for food and energy processes, and is a market and technology leader in its business areas. In order to gain access to wider range of cooling applications and to enhance the know-how with regard to environment friendly solutions, on 31 March 2011, the applicant entered into a Share Purchase Agreement (SPA) to acquire an unrelated German company, Bock Kaltemaschinen GmbH (Bock GmbH) at a purchase price of EUR40.50 million.

Bock GmbH is a family owned company. The consideration of EUR40.50 million was paid to the shareholders of Bock GmbH, all of whom are residents of Germany. Bock GmbH holds 100 per cent shares in Bock India, and also holds, directly or indirectly, 100 per cent shares in the companies located in various countries. Bock GmbH also holds, directly or indirectly, majority of the voting rights in a Thailand company, and a minority stake in an Australian company. Bock India is an operating company with its own manufacturing facilities in India and as a result of the aforementioned transaction, there was an indirect change in the ownership of Bock India due to the acquisition of Bock GmbH by the applicant.

The applicant filed an application to the AAR to determine whether income derived from the indirect transfer of Bock (India) on sale of shares of Bock GmbH, Germany is chargeable to tax in India under the Act read with the provisions of the tax treaty

The AAR held that capital gains arising from indirect transfer of shares of an Indian company on sale of shares of German company shall not be taxable in India under the provisions of Section 9(1)(i) of Act. The German company has derived its value substantially from its other companies whereas its value of assets in Indian company is a mere 5.40 per cent, far lower than the requirement of 50 per cent. Hence, it fails the test of deriving value substantially from the Indian company. The AAR also held that since the transfer is effected in Germany, and the payments have also been made in Germany, the gains arising from the alienation of shares by the shareholders of Bock GmbH can be brought to tax only in Germany.

GEA Refrigeration Technologies GmbH (AAR No. 1232 of 2012)

.

Corporate/bank guarantee fees received by a foreign holding company cannot be treated as interest in view of ‘Other Income’ article under the India-U.K. tax treaty and it is taxable under the Act

The taxpayer is the ultimate parent company of both Johnson Matthey India Private Limited (JMIPL) and Johnson Matthey Chemicals India Private Limited (JMCIPL). The taxpayer provides various types of guarantees in relation to the business of its subsidiaries companies. During the Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12, the taxpayer provided guarantees to support credit facilities extended to JMIPL and JMCIPL by banks in India. Guarantees provided to HSBC and Citibank on a global basis outside India include guarantee for the facilities extended to JMIPL and JMCIPL.

While filing its return of income for AY 2011-12, the taxpayer treated the guarantee fees received from Indian subsidiaries to be in the nature of interest income under Article 12 (Interest article) of the tax treaty and offered tax at beneficial rate at 15 per cent. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated the guarantee fee is taxable under Article 23 (other income article) of the tax treaty and charged to tax at 40 per cent. The AO rejected the beneficial rate offered by the taxpayer under interest article of the tax treaty. However, during the course of appeal, the taxpayer raised an additional ground stating that since the source of guarantee fee, received for providing guarantee for its AEs to foreign banks is outside India, it cannot be held to be taxable in India. The taxpayer contended that since it does not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, the income earned in the form of fees charged for providing bank guarantee/corporate guarantee, in the normal course of business, would not be chargeable to tax in India. The taxpayer relying on the decision of Capgemini S.A. v. ADIT (ITA No. 7198/Mum/2012, dated 28 March 2016) contended that when the Indian subsidiaries avail credit facilities pursuant to the corporate guarantee agreement entered into by the foreign parent outside India with a financial institution, the guarantee commission received by the foreign parent does not accrue nor does it deem to have been accrued in India and, therefore, not taxable in India under the Act.

The Delhi Tribunal held that the payment received by a foreign holding company from an Indian subsidiary on account of corporate/bank guarantee was accrued and received by the taxpayer in India and hence such a receipt is taxable in India. Such fees does not fall within the expression ‘interest’ in view of ‘other income’ article under the India-U.K. tax treaty . In the absence of any specific provision dealing with corporate/bank guarantee fees, the same has to be taxed in India as per the provisions of the Act.

Johnson Matthey Public Ltd. Company vs DCIT (ITA No.-1143/Del/2016)

Page 3: India Tax Konnect - KPMG · 2020-06-11 · INR250 crore during Financial Year (FY) 2016-17 are extended the benefit of concessional corporate tax rate of 25 per cent. To reduce economic

© 2018 KPMG, an Indian Registered Partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 3

Corporate taxDecisions

Provisions of transfer under Section 2(47) of the Act is not applicable to unregistered agreements

Taxpayers are in the business of real estate development. Taxpayers along with other group companies have formed a consortium in connection with development of an integrated township at Ghaziabad. In February 2007, a development agreement was entered into by the lead member of the consortium i.e. Saamag Developers with Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA) for the development of integrated township over 72.90 acres of land. Under the agreement, the GDA will provide assistance in acquisition of the land other than the land owned by the consortium parties which requires to complete the land for integrated township. Owing to the huge finances required for the development of the integrated township, the consortium parties entered into a shareholders’ agreement with a financial partner SARE [Cyprus] Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) in May 2007. As per the shareholders agreement, the taxpayers’ land and development rights in collusion thereto were valued at INR103.45 crore, which were paid 60 per cent in cash and 40 per cent in terms of equity shares/debentures and land was vested in SPV. Since the possession of land was handed over by taxpayers to the SPV, the AO held that it amounted to transfer in terms of Section 2(47)(v) and computed the profits on transfer of such development rights together with land for AY 2008-09 because the shareholders agreement was entered in May 2007. On appeal, Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) [CIT(A)] confirmed the order of the AO. Aggrieved, the taxpayer filed an appeal before the Delhi Tribunal.

Tribunal’s decision

Transfer under Section 2(47) of the Act

The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court decision in the case of Balbir Singh Maini [2017] 398 ITR 531 (SC) and observed that shareholders agreement in May 2007 was not registered under Section 17(1A) of the Registration Act, 1908, which is a prerequisite to give effect to Section 53A the Transfer of Property Act. Thus, the Tribunal held that provisions of Section 2(47) of the Act would not be applicable to shareholders agreement as well as the other agreements as those were unregistered agreements. The Tribunal observed that no liability of tax can be fastened on the taxpayer merely on the basis that the possession of the land has been handed over by the taxpayer. The

Tribunal relied on various decisions including Supreme Court decision in the case of E.D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd. vs CIT [1954] 26 ITR 27 (SC), CIT vs Excel Industries [2013] 358 ITR 295 (SC), etc., and observed that income is accrued when it becomes due but it should also beaccompanied by a corresponding liability of the other party to pay the amount. The Tribunal observed that only then can it be said that for the purposes of taxability that the income is not hypothetical and it has really accrued to the taxpayer. The Tribunal observed that income from capital gain on a transaction, which never materialised, was a hypothetical income. Though the entire transaction of development envisaged in the Joint Development Agreement (JDA) fell through, no profit or gain can arise from the transfer of a capital asset, which could be brought to tax under Section 48 of the Act. The Tribunal observed that as per the shareholders agreement, consortium parties were under obligation to provide the developed land along with necessary approvals and permissions from GDA.

Further, the Tribunal observed that if the consortium parties failed to provide the prescribed land then they would be liable for penal consequences and could not withdraw their amounts fixed under the agreement. Unless and until the approvals and permissions are granted by GDA, it cannot be said that any income accrued to the taxpayer. Hence, income was not accrued to the taxpayers. The Tribunal deleted capital gains addition for AY 2008-09.

Accrual of interest

With respect to interest on Fully Convertible Debentures (FCD) credited to the WIP account, the Tribunal observed that since there were various obligations like obtaining of approvals and permissions the taxpayers could not withdraw any amount from the SPV. Thus, the accrual of interest on FCD is also linked with the transfer of development rights together with land and accordingly it is correctly credited to the WIP account. It was a revenue neutral exercise as it would ultimately increase the profits in the year as and when approval was given. In this regard, the Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of CIT vs UP State Industrial Development Corporation [1997] 225 ITR 703 (SC).

Saamag Developers Pvt Ltd vs ACIT (ITA NO. 3618/DEL/2014 & 3559/Del/2017) – Taxsutra.com

Page 4: India Tax Konnect - KPMG · 2020-06-11 · INR250 crore during Financial Year (FY) 2016-17 are extended the benefit of concessional corporate tax rate of 25 per cent. To reduce economic

© 2018 KPMG, an Indian Registered Partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 4

Stamp duty value cannot be deemed as consideration while computing capital gains arising on contribution of land by a partner to the partnership firm which is governed by a specific provision

The taxpayer had entered into a Limited Liability Partnerships (LLP) during AY 2012-13 with an object of developing, constructing and operating resorts, hotels and apartment hotels and/or for carrying out such other hospitality business. By way of a supplementary agreement, the taxpayer transferred an immovable property as its capital contribution to the LLP firm. The taxpayer computed capital gain on transfer of land into the partnership firm in accordance with Section 45(3) and took the value i.e. INR5.6 crore as full value of consideration recorded in the books of the firm. As per the supplementary agreement, the stamp duty authority has determined the market value of the property at INR9.41 crore. The AO held that since there is a transfer of land into the partnership firm, provisions of Section 50C of the Act will apply and hence full value of consideration would be taken at INR9.41 crore as determined by the stamp valuation authority. The AO recomputed LTCG by adopting fair market value determined by the stamp duty authority. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO. Aggrieved, the taxpayer filed an appeal before Mumbai Tribunal.

On reference to the provisions of Section 45(3)1 of the Act, the Mumbai Tribunal observed that the said section comes into operation only in special cases of transfer between partnership firm and partners. The Tribunal observed that the amount recorded in the books of account of the firm shall be taken as full value of consideration for the purpose of computation of capital gain. The Tribunal observed that though Section 45(3) of the Act is not a specific provision overriding the other provisions of the Act, importing a deeming fiction provided in Section 50C of the Act cannot be extended to another deeming fiction created by the statute by way of Section 45(3) to deal with special cases of transfer. Section 45(3) of the Act was inserted to deal with cases of transfer between partnership firm and partners, and it provides for computation mechanism of capital gain and also provides for the consideration to be adopted for the purpose of determination of full value of consideration. When the Act itself has provided for deeming consideration to be adopted for the purpose of Section 48 of the Act, another deeming fiction by way of Section 50C cannot be extended to compute deemed full value of consideration as a result of transfer of capital asset.

The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT vs Moon Mills Ltd [1966] 59 ITR 574 (SC) and held that in the present case the amount recorded in the books of account of the firm shall be deemed to be full value of consideration received or accruing as a result of transfer of a capital asset for the purpose of Section 48 of the Act. The Tribunal deleted the addition made towards recomputation of LTCG on account of transfer of capital asset into partnership firm and ruled in favour of the taxpayer. Separately, with respect to expenditure disallowed in relation to exempt income under Section

14A of the Act by invoking Rule 8D(2)(ii) and 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules, the Tribunal concluded that when there is no exempt income, no disallowance can be made under Section 14A by invoking Rule 8D(2)(ii) and (iii) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (the Rules). The Tribunal held the decision in favour of the taxpayer.

DCIT vs Amartara Pvt Ltd (ITA No. 6050/Mum/2016) –Taxsutra.com

Marketing expenditure incurred by pharmaceutical company is deductible

The taxpayer is engaged in the business of manufacturing of pharmaceutical products. During AY 2011-12, the taxpayer incurred advertisement expenditure of INR25 lakh and publicity and propaganda expenses of INR15.95 crore. The AO allowed the said expenditure. However, the CIT held that the AO’s order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and relying on Central Board of Direct Tax (CBDT) Circular No.5/2012, dated 1 August 2012, disallowed the expenditure on the ground that it did not qualify for deduction in view of Explanation to Section 37(1) of the Act. Aggrieved, the taxpayer filed an appeal before Mumbai Tribunal.

Tribunal’s decision

Non-applicability of the MCI Regulations to the pharmaceutical sector

The Tribunal observed that MCI Regulations are applied only to doctors and not to pharmaceutical and medical device companies. The ambit of statutory provisions relating to professional conduct of registered medical practitioners under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 was restricted only to persons registered as medical practitioners with the State Medical Council and whose names were entered into the Indian Medical Register maintained under Section 21 of the Act. There is no ambiguity of any kind in the scheme of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 that it neither deals with nor provides for any conduct of any association/society and deals only with the conduct of individual registered medical practitioners. There is no other interpretation, which is possible under the Act. The Tribunal observed that once the Indian Medical Council Regulation has neither jurisdiction nor authority under law upon the pharmaceutical company or any allied health sector industry, then such a regulation could not have any prohibitory effect on the pharmaceutical company like the taxpayer.

Invalidity of the CBDT Circular

The Tribunal observed that CBDT Circular No. 5 of 2012 sought to disallow expenditure incurred by pharmaceutical companies inter-alia in providing ‘freebies’ to doctors in violation of the MCI Regulations. However, the term ‘freebies’ has neither been defined in the Act nor in the MCI Regulations. The expenditure incurred by the taxpayer did not amount to provision of ‘freebies’ to medical practitioners but was in the normal course of its business for the purpose of marketing of its products and dissemination of knowledge, etc. and not with a view to giving something free of charge.

Page 5: India Tax Konnect - KPMG · 2020-06-11 · INR250 crore during Financial Year (FY) 2016-17 are extended the benefit of concessional corporate tax rate of 25 per cent. To reduce economic

© 2018 KPMG, an Indian Registered Partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 5

It was incidental to the main objective of product awareness, hence, it would not amount to provision of freebies. Thus, the Tribunal held that, there was no question of contravention of the MCI Regulations and applicability of Circular No. 5 of 2012 for disallowance of the expenditure.

The Tribunal observed that CBDT circular ought to confirm to tax laws and for purpose of giving administrative relief or for clarifying the provisions of law and could not impose a burden on the taxpayer. It cannot create a new burden by enlarging the scope of a different regulation issued under a different act so as to impose any kind of hardship or liability to the taxpayer. Thus, the Tribunal clarified that the CBDT circular which creates a burden or liability or imposes a new kind of imparity, same cannot be reckoned retrospectively.

Business necessity of expenditure

The Tribunal upheld the taxpayer’s contention that free sample of medicine was only to prove the efficacy and to establish the trust of the doctors on the quality of the drugs which again could not be reckoned as freebies given to the doctors but for promotion of its products. The Tribunal also upheld taxpayer’s another contention that the pharmaceutical company could promote its sale and brand only by arranging seminars, conferences and thereby creating awareness amongst doctors about the new research in the medical field and therapeutic areas, etc. in order to provide correct diagnosis and treatment of the patients. Thus, the Tribunal quashed revision order passed by CIT under Section 263 of the Act.

Solvay Pharma India Ltd vs PCIT (ITA No.3585/Mum/2016) – Taxsutra.com

Investment made before the due date for filing belated tax return under Section 139(4) of the Act is eligible for capital gains exemption

During AY 2010-11, the taxpayer had sold two properties i.e. lands situated at Sanganer and claimed exemption under Section 54B of INR1.6 crore and under Section 54F of INR52 lakh. The AO declined the claim of exemption under Section 54B and Section 54F on the ground that the taxpayer did not deposit the net sale consideration in the capital gain account before due date of filing of return i.e. 30 July 2011. However, the taxpayer claimed that the entire sale consideration was deposited in the specified capital gains account before the due date of filing of belated return under Section 139(4) of the Act, and hence he was eligible for exemption under Section 54B and 54F of the Act. The same was rejected by AO and further confirmed by CIT(A). On further appeal, the Tribunal relied on coordinate bench decision in the case of Nand LalSharma wherein it was held that the new asset can be acquired before furnishing the return of income under

Section 139(4) of the Act for claiming exemption under Section 54 of the Act. The Tribunal thus ruled in favour of the taxpayer. Aggrieved, the tax department filed an appeal before Rajasthan High Court.

The High Court rejected the tax department’s reliance on the Supreme Court decision in the case of P. N. Khanna [2004] 266 ITR 1 (SC) which was rendered in context of a prosecution provision. The High Court observed that while considering the prosecution, the provisions are to be very strictly construed whereas in the case of exemption and other benefits, it is to be construed from the statue very liberally. The High Court rejected the tax department’s contention that investment was to be made before the return filing due date under Section 139(1) of the Act otherwise it will render the provision nugatory. Relying on the various High Court decisions in favour of the taxpayer, the High Court held that investment made before the due date for filing belated tax return under Section 139(4) of the Act is eligible for capital gains exemption.

PCIT vs Shankar Lal Saini (D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 153 / 2017) – Taxsutra.com

Notifications/Circulars/Press Releases

CBDT issues press release relaxing MAT provisions for the companies undergoing corporate insolvency resolution process

The CBDT has issued a press release stating that with effect from AY 2018-19, in case of a company, against whom an application for corporate insolvency resolution process has been admitted by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 7 or Section 9 or Section 10 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the amount of total loss brought forward (including unabsorbed depreciation) shall be allowed to be reduced from the book profit for the purposes of levy of Minimum Alternate Tax under Section 115JB of the Act.

CBDT press release dated 6 January 2018

Page 6: India Tax Konnect - KPMG · 2020-06-11 · INR250 crore during Financial Year (FY) 2016-17 are extended the benefit of concessional corporate tax rate of 25 per cent. To reduce economic

© 2018 KPMG, an Indian Registered Partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 6

CBDT issues letter for filing of references for restoration of ‘struck off’ companies under Companies Act 2013

The CBDT has issued a letter stating that request/appeal for restoration of name of the ‘struck off’ company with retrospective date from the date of being ‘struck off’ shall be made by the income-tax department in the following situations:

• Where proceedings under Sections 143(3)/144/147/ 153A/153C of the Act set-aside cases were already in progress.

• Where proceedings under Sections 143(3)/144/147/153A/153C of the Act are contemplated in near future.

• Where departmental appeals were pending.• Where penalty proceedings already initiated were

pending.• Where prosecution proceedings were

initiated/launched.

The CBDT letter states that while filing request/appeal, the restoration is being requested to protect the legitimate interests of revenue. The concerned company had apparently committed serious violations of the Act and rendering the entity liable to consequences under the Act and restoration of the company in the register of companies would enable the tax department to take pending proceedings to a logical conclusion. The CBDT has directed the AO to immediately make a reference to the respective regional Registrar of Companies (RoC) for revival of ‘struck off companies’ on a case to case basis in aforementioned situations. As an alternative, CBDT directs that jurisdictional Income-tax authorities on a case to case basis shall also file an appeal before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) for revival of ‘struck off company’ immediately.

CBDT letter F No. 225/423/2017-ITA.II, dated 29 December 2017

CBDT issues notification prescribing alternative communication addresses for service of notice, summons and orders to taxpayers

The CBDT has issued a notification amending Rule 127 of the Rules. The amended rule states that where the communication cannot be delivered or transmitted to the address specified in Rule 127(2)(a) of the Rules or any other address furnished by the addressee as referred therein, the communication shall be delivered or transmitted to the following address:

• The address of the taxpayer as available with a banking company or a co-operative bank

• The address of the taxpayer as available with the Post Master General

• The address of the taxpayer as available with the insurer

• The address of the taxpayer as furnished in Form No.61 to the Director of Income-tax (Intelligence and Criminal Investigation) or to the Joint Director of Income-tax (Intelligence and Criminal Investigation)

• The address of the taxpayer as furnished in Form No.61A under Rule 114E(1) to the Director of Income-tax (Intelligence and Criminal Investigation) or to the Joint Director of Income-tax (Intelligence and Criminal Investigation)

• The address of the taxpayer as available in the records of the government

• The address of the taxpayer as available in the records of a local authority

Notification No. 98/2017, dated 20 December 2017

CBDT extends date for linking of Aadhaar with PAN

The CBDT has issued a press release stating that some of the taxpayers have not yet completed the linking of PAN with Aadhaar. Therefore, to facilitate the process of linking, CBDT has decided to further extend the time for linking of Aadhaar with PAN till 31 March 2018.

CBDT press release, dated 8 December 2017

Page 7: India Tax Konnect - KPMG · 2020-06-11 · INR250 crore during Financial Year (FY) 2016-17 are extended the benefit of concessional corporate tax rate of 25 per cent. To reduce economic

© 2018 KPMG, an Indian Registered Partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 7

Transfer pricingDecisions

The amendment with respect to specified domestic transaction by the Finance Act, 2017 is deemed to be omitted from its inception

During FY 2012-13, the taxpayer incurred expenditure in relation to payment of remuneration to directors as covered under Section 92BA(i) of the Act. The AO made a reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under Section 92CA for determination of Arm’s Length Price (ALP) as the transaction exceeded the prescribed limit. The TPO computed the ALP and the taxpayer filed an objection before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The DRP passed its directions enhancing the disallowance on the remuneration paid by the taxpayer to its directors.

The AO passed final assessment order following the DRP directions. Aggrieved by the order, the taxpayer filed an appeal before the Tribunal.

Tribunal’s ruling

• Tribunal noted that Section 92BA was brought into the statute by the Finance Act, 2012, w.e.f. 01 April 2013 and as such, AY 2013-14 (the year under consideration) was the “first year when the transactions are to be examined in the light of provisions of Section 92BA of the Act”.

• The Tribunal noted that the omission of Clause (i) of Section 92BA was done by the Finance Act, 2017, and hence was w.e.f. 01 April 2017. However, the Tribunal appreciated the fact that the question under consideration was the impact of this omission from a statute on an already ongoing proceedings, and if such an omission renders the proceedings redundant. To address the question, the Tribunal referred to Supreme Court judgements in the case of Kolhapur CanesugarWorks1 and General Finance Co.2 as well as Jurisdictional High Court ruling in the case of GE Thermometrics3. The Tribunal observed that the Kolhapur Canesugar and General Finance judgements examined omissions in light of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act.

__________________

1 Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. vs Union of India [Appeal (Civil) 2132 of 1994, dated 1 February 2000]2 General Finance Co. vs ACIT [2002] 257 ITR 338 (SC)CIT vs GE Thermometrics India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 876/2008)3 CIT vs GE Thermometrics India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 876/2008)

• Further, the Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court, while delivering Kolhapur Canesugar judgement, had held that “the court is to look to the provisions in the rule which has been introduced after omission of the previous rule to determine whether a pending proceeding will continue or lapse. If there is a provision therein that pending proceedings shall continue and be disposed of under the old rule as if the rule has not been deleted or omitted then such a proceeding will continue.”

• The Supreme Court also stressed that only when a pari-materia provision4 confirms that the pending proceedings will remain unaffected by the omission, will the proceedings continue. In the absence of any such provisions in the statute or in the rule, the pending proceeding will lapse.

• The Tribunal also referred to the High Court ruling in GE Thermometrics case wherein upon examining the impact of omission of Sub-Section (9) of Section 10B, concluded that once the section is omitted from the statute book, the result is that it had never been passed.

• Based on the review of various judicial precedents, the Tribunal concluded that “it has become abundantly clear that once a particular provision of section is omitted from the statute, it shall be deemed to be omitted from its inception unless and until there is some saving clause or provision to make it clear that action taken or proceeding initiated under that provision or section would continue and would not be left on account of omission.”

• In the present case, as clause (i) of Section 92BA was omitted by Finance Act, 2017 w.e.f. 1 April 2017, the Tribunal stated that “Once this clause is omitted by subsequent amendment, it would be deemed that clause (i) was never been on the statute. While omitting the clause (i), nothing was specified whether the proceeding initiated or action taken on this continue. Therefore, the proceeding initiated or action taken under that clause would not survive at all.” Thus, the Tribunal opined that “the cognisance taken by the AO under Section 92B(i) and reference made to TPO under Section 92CA is invalid and bad in law. Therefore, the consequential order passed by the TPO and DRP is also not sustainable in the eyes of law.”

_______________

4 Provisions to be read together; in consonance

Page 8: India Tax Konnect - KPMG · 2020-06-11 · INR250 crore during Financial Year (FY) 2016-17 are extended the benefit of concessional corporate tax rate of 25 per cent. To reduce economic

© 2018 KPMG, an Indian Registered Partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 8

Stating that the AO should have framed the assessment in normal course after making the necessary enquires on the particular claim of expenditure, the Tribunal opined that since the exercise could not have been completed on account of the provisions of Section 92BA(i) of the Act, the issue was remitted back to the file of the AO/TPO with a direction to re-adjudicate the issue of claim of expenditure under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act.

Texport Overseas Private Limited vs DCIT [IT (TP)A No. 1722/Bang/2017]

Notifications/Circulars/Press Releases

India signs first ever bilateral APA with the U.S.A.

Crossing a significant milestone, India has signed the first ever bilateral Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) with the U.S.A. India has come a long way, since the deadlock that existed between India and the U.S.A., by first agreeing in January 2015 on a broad framework for resolving Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) cases that revolved around various tax and transfer pricing disputes, over the period of time. Only in February 2016, the U.S.A. started accepting applications for bilateral APAs from the U.S.A. taxpayers and now in less than a year, India and the U.S.A. have signed their first bilateral APA. This APA was in respect of Information Technology (IT)/Information Technology enabled Services (ITeS) sector and involved determining a cost plus markup for transactions of an Indian captive service provider. The Central Board of Direct Taxes of India under the Ministry of Finance, has indicated that there are many more bilateral APAs with the U.S.A. in advanced stage of negotiation and are likely to be concluded in 2018.

Source – Taxsutra, dated 5 January 2018

Page 9: India Tax Konnect - KPMG · 2020-06-11 · INR250 crore during Financial Year (FY) 2016-17 are extended the benefit of concessional corporate tax rate of 25 per cent. To reduce economic

© 2018 KPMG, an Indian Registered Partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 9

Indirect taxGoods and Services tax

Notifications/Circulars/Press Releases

• E-way bill rules made effective from 1 February 2018. States to issue separate notification for making e-way bill applicable for intra state movement as well. More than 10 states already issued notification for the same.

Notification No. 74/2017-Central Tax, 29 December 2017

• Late fees payable for delay in filing of return in form-GSTR-4 (Composition supplier) reduced to INR50 (twenty five each for CGST and SGST) per day. While in case of nil return, the late fees reduced to twenty rupees (ten each for CGST and SGST) per day.

Notification No. 73/2017-Central Tax, 29 December 2017

• Composition rate in case of manufacturers has been reduced from 1 per cent to 0.5 per cent of the turnover in the state.

Notification No. 1/2018-Central Tax, 1 January 2018.

Excise

Decisions

CENVAT credit on MS angels, plates used for fabrication and erection of structures embedded to earth allowed

Taxpayer was engaged in manufacture of sponge iron and had availed the benefit of CENVAT credit of duty paid on input/input services and capital goods. During the course of audit, it was noticed that, the taxpayer had availed CENVAT credit on MS angels, plates, channels and joists during the period July 2007 to April 2008, and these items were used for fabrication and erection of structures which were embedded to the earth. Accordingly, it appeared that, the credit availed on said items was irregular in as much as these items were neither inputs nor capital goods.

SCN was issued proposing to deny the credit, besides proposal to demand interest and proposal to impose penalty. The taxpayer submitted that the capital goods becoming immovable property is irrelevant as the eligibility of credit has to be decided at the stage before becoming immovable property. The taxpayer also submitted that the issue of availment of credit on various iron and steel items used as component for capital goods or structural for support of capital goods is settled in favour of the appellant in various decisions.

The CESTAT in this background held that, a similar issue was considered by the Madras High Court in case of India Cements Ltd. 2015-TIOL-650-HC-MAD-CX, wherein it has was held that the taxpayer was entitled to avail CENVAT credit on various iron and steel items which are used as components for capital goods or for structure support of capital goods which was embedded to the earth and thus becoming immovable property.

Accordingly, order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside and the taxpayer’s appeal was allowed for availment of CENVAT credit on various iron and steel items which were used as components for capital goods or for structure support of capital goods embedded to earth.

Hindustan Calcined Metals Pvt. Ltd. vs CCE [2018-TIOL-57-CESTAT-BANG]

Goods cleared by the job worker to principal manufacturer in incomplete form are not liable for the levy of excise duty as they are not marketable

The facts of the case was that, the taxpayer was carrying-out job work for principal manufacturer, who were availing area based exemption. Since the manufacturer enjoyed the benefits of area based exemption, the commissioner was of the view that the goods manufactured by job work for the principal manufacturer would not be eligible for benefit of job work notification no.214/86-CE providing exemption from payment of excise duty. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for de-novo adjudication and to provide specific finding after considering the taxpayer's plea that the goods which were being cleared by the taxpayer to principal manufacturer are in incomplete form and as such are not marketable and, therefore, are not excisable. However, vide impugned order, the commissioner reiterated his earlier order and the demand was confirmed. Hence, the said appeal was filed before the CESTAT.

On perusal of the photographs of the goods being cleared by the taxpayer, it was indicated that the taxpayer had only populated some of the components in the enclosures supplied by the principal manufacturer, and these are undoubtedly in the form of incomplete systems of various equipment and definitely cannot be marketed, as such, in the light of the test laid-down by the Apex Court in the case of Bata India Ltd. - 2010-TIOL-28-SC-CX. Accordingly, there was nothing on the record produced by the commissioner that the incomplete goods were capable of being marketed without further processing.

Page 10: India Tax Konnect - KPMG · 2020-06-11 · INR250 crore during Financial Year (FY) 2016-17 are extended the benefit of concessional corporate tax rate of 25 per cent. To reduce economic

© 2018 KPMG, an Indian Registered Partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 10

Consequently, the goods failed the test of marketability, since marketability was a very important aspect of manufacture, the goods cannot be considered as manufactured in the form in which they are cleared from the taxpayer's factory. Accordingly, the impugned order was set aside.

Mi Telecom Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs CCE [2018-TIOL-88-CESTAT-DEL]

Service Tax

The taxpayer was manufacturing expensive products and in order to deliver such goods safely to clients, employed service of security agency in the form of armed guards to accompany the good to premises of buyers. Taxpayer’s contention was that it is delivering goods at buyer’s premises and therefore, place of removal should be treated as buyer’s premises and hence CENVAT credit was allowable. CESTAT stated that the taxpayer had specifically informed that it was not availing CENVAT credit of goods transport agency service and transit insurance for supply of goods to the buyer. It further noted the submission of the taxpayer that value of freight and insurance was not included in the value. Hence, CESTAT held that taxpayers submission that buyers premises should be treated as ‘place of removal’ was unsustainable as contrary stand cannot be taken in respect of freight and insurance and transit security service. However, CESTAT allowed credit on courier services related to procurement of inputs. Hence, the taxpayer’s appeal was partly allowed.

Bharat Bijlee Ltd. [TS-407-CESTAT-2017-ST]

Customs

Decisions

Exemption under notification 1/2004-Cus allowed to a unit when the taxpayer was not an EOU

The facts of the case was that, the taxpayer being a 100 per cent Export Oriented Unit (EOU) imported certain goods and warehoused the same for the purpose of manufacture and consequently exported the final products without being cleared for home consumption.

Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise alleged that, the taxpayer did not have an EOU status during the period July 2002 to June 2003, therefore, there shall be no grant of exemption under notification 1/2004-Cus

It this background CESTAT held that, the basic structure of the customs law requires levy of the import duty on import made for home consumption. The material facts recorded does not establish that there was a case of clearance for home consumption for levy of import duty.

Therefore, a plain reading of the provisions contained in Section 62, 65, 67 and 69 of the Customs Act, 1962 calls for an irresistible conclusion that the goods meant for

export but staying in India during the transit period of making improvement through the process of manufacture, does not call for levy of customs duty. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed in favour of the taxpayer.

GKB Ophthalmics Ltd vs CC & CE [2018-TIOL-94-CESTAT-MUM]

Liability arising out of improper mutilation of goods cleared by SEZ by payment of duty on behalf of DTA cannot be demanded from SEZ as it cannot be considered as importer

The taxpayer was a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) unit and was permitted to import goods into SEZ, process them and re-export them. The taxpayer imported old used goods without payment of duty, processed and then exported them. The goods which could not be processed were cleared to Domestic Tariff Area (DTA), after undertaking mutilation as per Circular of Board on payment of Customs duty.

The said goods were seized in the DTA, and were inspected. It was alleged that, the goods were not properly mutilated as per the circular. Even though the report of the appraiser was in favour of the taxpayer, duty demand was raised with imposition of interest and penalty. The goods were confiscated and option of redemption fine was given.

In this background the CESTAT held that, the present appeals can be disposed-off simply on pure question of law as to who was the importer of the goods. Considering the definition of 'importer' u/s 2(26), the appellant cannot be considered as an importer although the appellant had deposited the duty as this was done on behalf of DTA. Hence, no duty liability arises, even if goods were liable for confiscation. Hence, the impugned order was set aside and an appeal was allowed.

Anita Exports vs CCE [2018-TIOL-02-CESTAT-AHM]

Notifications/Circulars/Press Releases

Implementing electronic sealing for containers by exporters under self-sealing procedure

As per the undermentioned circular all the entitled exporters who have acquired Radio-frequency identification (RFID) e-seals and are stuffing containers at approved premises for export through ports/ICDs where facilities for readers are available, the new e-sealing procedure is voluntary till 1 March 2018.

With effect from 1 March 2018, the procedure shall become mandatory in respect of the exporters who have been permitted self-sealing facilities under erstwhile procedures and AEO exporters or availing supervised stuffing at their premises for the 15 locations specified in the notifications. For other locations same will be mandatory from 1 April 2018.

51/ 2017 –Customs; Dated: 21 December 2017

Page 11: India Tax Konnect - KPMG · 2020-06-11 · INR250 crore during Financial Year (FY) 2016-17 are extended the benefit of concessional corporate tax rate of 25 per cent. To reduce economic

© 2018 KPMG, an Indian Registered Partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 11

VAT

Decisions

Stay order shall not be vacated basis the expiry of time limit for disposal of appeal as specified in the statutory provision in certain special circumstances

The assessee had obtained a stay order from the Appellate Tribunal under Section 63(7)b of Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act) which prescribes that, the ‘Appellate Tribunal shall dispose of such appeal within a period of 365 days from the date of the order staying proceedings of recovery of 70 per cent of tax or other amount and, if such appeal is not so disposed of within the period specified, the order of stay shall stand vacated after the said period and the Appellate Tribunal shall not make any further order staying proceedings of recovery of the said tax or other amount.’

However, the Tribunal could not dispose of the appeal filed by assessee within stipulated time period of 365 days, on account of heavy work burden faced by them and not because of any fault of the assessee.

In connection to the above, the assessee filed a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court on the issue of lapse of stay order without disposal of appeal by the Tribunal. Also, various petitions have been filed by the petitioners on similar grounds before the HC, wherein it was directed to the Tribunal to expeditiously decide the appeal pending before them and also order that the stay order to be extended until the appeal was decided.

The High Court in the present case held that, the stay order should not be allowed to lapse on account of limited powers vested with the Appellate Authority and merely because the Appellate Authority was burdened on account of heavy work and could not dispose of the appeal within the stipulated time (without any fault on part of the assesse). The High Court has disposed the writ petition by ordering the Tribunal to decide the matter, within a period of six months and it has directed that the stay order granted by the Tribunal shall not lapse until the appeal is disposed of. Also, the High Court ordered that the state should immediately make appropriate amendments to the said section to avoid similar litigations before the Constitutional Courts.

Carboline (India) Private limited [TS-4-HC-2018(KAR)VAT]

Notifications/Circulars/Press Releases/Order

Maharashtra

Vide the below mentioned circular, Commissioner of Maharashtra State has specified the procedure for refund of security deposit in case of dealers who had opted for voluntary registration under Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act 2002 (MVAT Act). Accordingly, such dealers will have to make a refund application before the jurisdictional Joint Commissioner (JC) along with the necessary documents. Thereafter, JC shall appoint Nodal officers to process the refund claim post verification of documents submitted by the dealer.

Circular No. 53T of 2017 dated 22 December 2017

Rajasthan

Vide below mentioned circular, the Commissioner of Rajasthan has directed that rectification order passed by the assessing authority or any other officer wherein they have enhanced the admitted tax liability of a dealer, or imposed a penalty on him or on any other person under the provisions of the Act or the Rules, or passed any order detrimental to the dealer’s interest, shall be passed after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and it should be a speaking order. Further, the said circular also directed that rectification applications filed by dealers shall be disposed of within the time limit of six months.

Circular No. 3/ 2017-18, dated 9 January 2018

The Commissioner of Rajasthan has extended the date of submission of annual returns up to 28 February 2018:

• Form VAT 11 for the year 2016-17 • Form VAT 10A for the year 2016-17 • Form VAT 10 for the first quarter for the year 2017-18 • Form VAT 11 for the first quarter for the year 2017-18

Notification No. F26(315)CCT/MEA/2014/3441, dated 29 December 2017]

Andhra Pradesh

Commissioner has suspended the inspection of the premises of dealer through generation of Form-ADM1B (Authorisation of audit programme) and Form-304 (Notification of advisory/audit visit to a VAT dealer), in respect of pre-GST transactions. Accordingly, now authorisation to the inspecting officers shall be issued only for the purpose of finalisation of assessment, by generating Form – ADM – I C (Form for notification of non-completion of Audit) through their website.

Circular CCT Ref No. CCW/C S(2)/309/2017 dated 13 December 2017]

Page 12: India Tax Konnect - KPMG · 2020-06-11 · INR250 crore during Financial Year (FY) 2016-17 are extended the benefit of concessional corporate tax rate of 25 per cent. To reduce economic

© 2018 KPMG, an Indian Registered Partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 12

Foreign Trade Policy

Public Notice

Amendments in Ayat Niryat Forms (ANF)

Amendments have been made in ANF 4A, 4E, 4F, 4G, 4H & 4I of Handbook of Procedures 2015-2020 in light of implementation of GST and non-issuance of Export Promotion (EP) copies of Shipping Bills by Customs Authorities.

Public Notice no. 52/2015-2020, Dated: 12 January 2018

Page 13: India Tax Konnect - KPMG · 2020-06-11 · INR250 crore during Financial Year (FY) 2016-17 are extended the benefit of concessional corporate tax rate of 25 per cent. To reduce economic

© 2018 KPMG, an Indian Registered Partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. 13

The information contained 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.

© 2018 KPMG, an Indian Registered Partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.

The KPMG name and logo are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International.

This document is meant for e-communications only.

Follow us onkpmg.com/in/socialmedia

KPMG in IndiaAhmedabad

Commerce House V, 9th Floor, 902 & 903, Near Vodafone House, Corporate Road, Prahlad Nagar,Ahmedabad – 380 051Tel: +91 79 4040 2200

Fax: +91 79 4040 2244

BengaluruMaruthi Info-Tech Centre

11-12/1, Inner Ring RoadKoramangala, Bengaluru – 560 071Tel: +91 80 3980 6000Fax: +91 80 3980 6999

ChandigarhSCO 22-23 (Ist Floor)

Sector 8C, Madhya Marg Chandigarh – 160 009Tel: +91 172 393 5777/781 Fax: +91 172 393 5780

ChennaiKRM Tower, Ground Floor,No 1, Harrington RoadChetpet, Chennai – 600 031Tel: +91 44 3914 5000Fax: +91 44 3914 5999

HyderabadSalarpuria Knowledge City, ORWELL, 6th Floor, Unit 3, Phase III, Sy No. 83/1, Plot No 2,Serilingampally Mandal, RaidurgRanga Reddy District, Hyderabad, Telangana – 500081Tel: +91 40 6111 6000Fax: +91 40 6111 6799

JaipurRegus Radiant Centres Pvt Ltd.,

Level 6, Jaipur Centre Mall,B2 By pass Tonk RoadJaipur, Rajasthan – 302018.Tel: +91 141 - 7103224

KochiSyama Business Center 3rd Floor, NH By Pass Road, Vytilla, Kochi – 682019 Tel: +91 484 302 7000 Fax: +91 484 302 7001

KolkataUnit No. 603 – 604, 6th Floor, Tower – 1, Godrej Waterside, Sector – V, Salt Lake, Kolkata – 700 091 Tel: +91 33 4403 4000 Fax: +91 33 4403 4199

MumbaiLodha Excelus, Apollo MillsN. M. Joshi MargMahalaxmi, Mumbai – 400 011Tel: +91 22 3989 6000Fax: +91 22 3983 6000

NoidaUnit No. 501, 5th Floor,Advant Navis Business parkTower-B, Plot# 7, Sector 142, Expressway Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida – 201305Tel: +91 0120 386 8000Fax: +91 0120 386 8999

Pune9th floor, Business Plaza,

Westin Hotel Campus, 36/3-B, Koregaon Park Annex, Mundhwa Road, Ghorpadi, Pune – 411001Tel: +91 20 6747 7000 Fax: +91 20 6747 7100

VadodaraiPlex India Private Limited, 1st floor office space, No. 1004, Vadodara Hyper, Dr. V S Marg Alkapuri, Vadodara – 390 007 Tel: +91 0265 235 1085/232 2607/232 2672

GurugramBuilding No.10, 8th FloorDLF Cyber City, Phase IIGurugram, Haryana – 122 002Tel: +91 124 307 4000Fax: +91 124 254 9101

KPMGin Indiacontact

Girish Vanvari

Partner and Head

Tax

T:+91 (22) 3090 1910

E:[email protected]


Recommended