https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344757 The Tribunal determined that the branch office of a Japanese company in India falls under the purview of Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994, making them liable for tax on a reverse charge basis for services received from outside India. It was clarified that the deployment of employees by the Japanese Company to their project office in India does not amount to 'manpower supply service'. The tax liability of the appellant was found to be unsustainable as they did not pay any amount to the Japanese parent company for employee deputation. The interpretation of Section 67(2) Explanation-(c) was deemed inapplicable to the appellant's transaction, leading to the Tribunal setting aside the impugned orders and allowing the appeals. en-us Tue, 06 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Nov 2017 11:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344757 The Tribunal determined that the branch office of a Japanese company in India falls under the purview of Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994, making them liable for tax on a reverse charge basis for services received from outside India. It was clarified that the deployment of employees by the Japanese Company to their project office in India does not amount to 'manpower supply service'. The tax liability of the appellant was found to be unsustainable as they did not pay any amount to the Japanese parent company for employee deputation. The interpretation of Section 67(2) Explanation-(c) was deemed inapplicable to the appellant's transaction, leading to the Tribunal setting aside the impugned orders and allowing the appeals. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 06 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344757