TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 2215
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ench, Bangalore, dated 22.07.2015 passed in IT(TP)A No.23/Bang/2015 (M/s.Rambus Chip Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd., vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax) for A.Y.2009-10. 2. This appeal has been admitted on 20.09.2017 to consider the following substantial questions of law framed by the learned counsel for the Appellants- Revenue:- "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in setting aside the addition made by the assessing authority in respect of amount of income-tax of Rs. 14,85,677/- paid by the assessee-company on behalf of an expatriate employee Mr. Prakash Bare when the tax payment on the salary was liability of the employee and not that of the assessee? 2. Whether on the f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ther tax and interest on the offshore remuneration paid by the assessee therein to its expatriate employee is allowable as business expenditure and at paras.23 to 34 of its order, the Tribunal has held as under: xxxxxxxxxxxx 19. We find that in both the above decisions, it has been held that remuneration and the income-tax thereon paid on behalf of the employee therein, is an allowable expenditure u/s 37 of the Act. In view of the same, we allow the assessee's ground of appeal". 4. From the findings of the learned Tribunal, it is clear that on the Agreement between the Assessee and the Employee Mr.Prakash Bare, contemplates that the income tax liability on the salary to be paid to the employee Mr.Prakash Bare, shall be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of the 'consideration' for acquisition of the know-how. We hold accordingly and answer the first question as above. A reference in this connection may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of McDowell & Co. Ltd., vs. CTO (1985) 47 CTR (SC) 126; (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC) wherein it was held that excise duty was part of the 'consideration'. Another direct decision covering the question is by the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Standard Polygraph Machines (P) Ltd. (2001) 171 CTR (Mad) 152 : (2000) 243 ITR 788 (Mad). 13. Before leaving this issue we may say that the words "lump sum" as used before the word "consideration" in s.35AB, only exclude periodical or turnover based payments like royalty etc., and an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "Conclusion: 55. A substantial quantum of international trade and transactions depends upon the fair and quick judicial dispensation in such cases. Had it been a case of substantial question of interpretation of provisions of Double Taxation Avoidance Treaties (DTAA), interpretation of provisions of the Income Tax Act or Overriding Effect of the Treaties over the Domestic Legislations or the questions like Treaty Shopping, Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS), Transfer of Shares in Tax Havens (like in the case of Vodafone etc.), if based on relevant facts, such substantial questions of law could be raised before the High Court under Section 260-A of the Act, the Courts could have embarked upon such exercise of framing ....