CC wins latest round of India tax dispute
The Bombay High Court has ruled that a foreign law firm may only be taxed in India on work performed in the country, supporting an appeal by Clifford Chance (CC). CC had previously been ordered by India's Commissioner of Income Tax to pay taxes on all of the fees - around $3m (£2.04m) - it earned on work performed on four energy infrastructure projects undertaken in India between 1996 and 1998.The top five London law firm primarily advised non-Indian participants on UK law aspects of the projects and much of the work was handled outside of India. CC challenged the assessment, arguing that only around $871,000 (£592,000) in fees actually billed in India should be taxable.
January 05, 2009 at 07:25 AM
3 minute read
The Bombay High Court has ruled that a foreign law firm may only be taxed in India on work performed in the country, supporting an appeal by Clifford Chance (CC).
CC had previously been ordered by India's Commissioner of Income Tax to pay taxes on all of the fees – around $3m (£2.04m) – it earned on work performed on four energy infrastructure projects undertaken in India between 1996 and 1998.
The magic circle firm primarily advised non-Indian participants on UK law aspects of the projects and much of the work was handled outside of India. CC challenged the assessment, arguing that only around $871,000 (£592,000) in fees actually billed in India should be taxable.
The Bombay High Court (pictured) took up the case after India's Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ruled in September 2001 that the nature of the work should determine its taxability in India. In rejecting CC's appeal, the tribunal determined that the "territorial nexus" between the firm's fees and the projects in India meant all of the fees, wherever billed, accrued or arose in India and were taxable nationally.
But in a decision dated 19 December, the court reasoned that "[i]ncome arising out of operations in more than one jurisdiction would have territorial nexus with each of the jurisdictions on actual basis. If that be so, it may not be correct to contend that the entire income 'accrues or arises' in each of the jurisdictions."
CC's lawyer, former Indian Solicitor General Harish Salve, argued that, in the case of a legal professional rendering advisory services, the services could only be considered to have been rendered at a place where the professional is personally present. Any other rule would create chaos and uncertainty, Salve maintained.
The court agreed, ruling that "for a non-resident to be taxed on income for services, such a service needs to be rendered within India, and has to be part of a business or profession carried on by such person in India".
Decisions by the Bombay High Court and other Indian high courts are appealable to the Supreme Court of India.
The issue of taxation has been a sore point for international law firms targeting key developing markets such as India and China. In both countries authorities and local Bar groups have occasionally floated broader taxation on work handled abroad but tied to matters or transactions within those countries' borders.
Anthony Lin is Incisive Legal's chief Asia correspondent.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCan Law Firms Avoid Landing on the 'Enemy' List During the Trump Administration?
5 minute readLetter From Asia: Will Big Law Ever Bother to Understand Asia Again?
Simpson Thacher, Nishimura, Mori Hamada Assist on KKR's $4B Winning Bid in Japan
Trending Stories
- 1Class Action Settlements Totaled $40B+ Three Years in a Row: 'We’re in a New Era'
- 2Automaker Pleads Guilty and Agrees to $1.6 Billion in Payouts
- 3MLB's Texas Rangers Search For a New GC and a Broadcasting Deal
- 4Does the Treasury Hack Underscore a Big Problem for the Private Sector?
- 5Gen AI Legal Tech Startup Eve Raises $47 Million Series A Investment
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250