ITAT held that royalty should be computed under rule 10AB separately and cannot be aggregated with others
The petitioner had entered into an agreementagreed with Emirates Defence Industries Co (EDIC), located outside India, to provide Satellite-derived 3D model services. To fulfil this agreement, the petitioner imported high-resolution satellite images, processed them, and transmitted the results via file transfer protocol. GST authorities contended that the services offered by the petitioner would be categorized as Online Information Database Access or Retrieval (OIDAR) services. Since the petitioner was unable to establish that the place of supply for these services was outside India, a GST refund on the export of services was denied.
The High Court held the agreement explicitly states that the services are intended for supply to EDIC, a non-Indian entity. Furthermore, the services involve specialized work in providing 3D city models, which are not readily available on the internet and they do not fall within the category of services defined as OIDAR services. The Court further noted that if the Department’s interpretation is to be accepted then it would lead to an absurd outcome, as it would imply that any form of information communication or service provision via email or electronic data transfer should be considered OIDAR, which is certainly not the purport and meaning of OIDAR services. The Court finally concluded that merely because the petitioner has secured data from different source so as to create the services to be supplied to EDIC, it would not amount to the petitioner falling within the definition of OIDAR services.
The petitioner, in this case, offers bookkeeping, payroll, and accounting services using cloud technology to its affiliated entity based in the UK. GST authorities contended that the petitioner is providing intermediary services, and as a result, they are not eligible for a refund, as the place of supply would be in India.
The High Court held that the petitioner does not qualify as an intermediary because the petitioner neither facilitates the provision of services by a third party nor acts as a middleman in procuring such services for its affiliate. The petitioner is contracted to provide the services and is, in essence, the principal service provider in this context.
The petitioner, under a support service agreement, provides investment advisory services to an overseas entity for investing in Indian target companies. GST authorities contended that these services fall under the definition of intermediary services since the petitioner facilitates investment by the foreign entity in target companies.
The High Court held that the agreement clearly establishes the petitioner as an independent service provider, operating on a principal-to-principal basis. The agreement explicitly states that the petitioner is not intended to act as an agent of the principal. Given these facts, the services provided by the petitioner involve only two parties (supplier and recipient) and do not meet the requirement of three parties for intermediary services. Therefore, the services rendered by the petitioner cannot be classified as intermediary services.
The petitioner in this case filed a writ petition questioning whether the Input Tax Credit (ITC) can be availed when all conditions outlined in Section 16(2) have been met, except for the payment of tax collected by the supplier to the government. Additionally, the concern expressed was whether recovering the tax from the purchaser who claimed ITC would result in double taxation, considering that the law provides mechanisms for recovering taxes from defaulting sellers.
The High Court held that a purchaser is eligible to claim ITC only when all conditions specified under Section 16(2) are satisfied collectively, not in isolation. Therefore, merely producing documents showing payment and the movement of goods will not entitle the purchaser to claim ITC. The issue of double taxation for the purchaser does not arise, as ITC is denied only when the supplier fails to remit the tax to the government. In cases where the supplier does not remit the tax to the government, it becomes the responsibility of the purchaser, who claimed the ITC, to recover the tax amount from the non-compliant supplier.
The applicant in this case is a dealer in automobiles who is required to purchase cars for demo purposes. These cars are either used as replacement vehicles after 2 years or sold to customers. The applicant has capitalized these motor vehicles in their accounting books and sought clarification regarding the availability of Input Tax Credit (ITC) on such motor vehicles.
Tamil Nadu AAR has held that capitalizing a motor vehicle, which was purchased, does not render the tax paid on the acquisition ineligible for ITC if there is a subsequent supply of these motor vehicles, as defined within the scope of Section 7 of the Central GST Act. Therefore, if the applicant intends to sell the motor vehicle after 2 years, they are eligible to claim ITC.
The appellant, an exporter in this case, received export proceeds in their Indian bank account after the deduction of the foreign bank’s charges. The dispute revolved around whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax on these charges under the reverse charge mechanism as import of service from foreign banks.
The Chennai Tribunal held that the Indian bank has merely recovered these charges from the appellant as reimbursement for the service charges they bore. In this transaction, the foreign bank is regarded as the service provider, and the Indian bank, located in India, is the actual service recipient liable to pay service tax under the reverse charge mechanism. Even if it is assumed that the appellant received any service, it would have been solely from the Indian bank. Therefore, according to the forward charge mechanism, the Indian bank is responsible for service tax payment in such cases.
On 15 th August 2023, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (“MAS“) released the finalized regulatory framework for stablecoins regulated in Singapore in its “Response to Public Consultation on Proposed Regulatory Approach for Stablecoin-related Activities” (“Response“) where MAS responded to feedback received on MAS’ earlier public consultation (“Consultation“) which was published in October 2022 where MAS first set out its proposals for the new regulatory framework. Stablecoins are digital tokens designed to maintain a constant value against one or more specified fiat currencies. MAS had previously identified that an innovative and responsible digital asset ecosystem needs credible and reliable mediums of exchange to facilitate transactions. MAS noted the potential for stablecoins to function as such mediums of exchange where they are well-regulated and give a high degree of assurance of value stability, and the new regulatory framework seeks to support the development of such stablecoins.
In the Consultation, MAS noted that stablecoins are currently treated as digital payment tokens (“DPTs”) under the Payment Services Act 2019 (“PS Act“). In the Consultation, MAS proposed to introduce a new regulated activity of “Stablecoin Issuance Service” under the PS Act to regulate Single-Currency Pegged Stablecoins (“SCS“) pegged to the Singapore dollar or Group of Ten (G10) currencies issued in Singapore under the new regulatory framework (“SCS Framework“).
Other types of stablecoins, including SCS issued outside of Singapore or pegged to other currencies or assets, will not be prohibited from being issued, used or circulated within Singapore. These stablecoins will continue to be subject to the existing DPT regulatory regime. MAS stated it will continue to monitor developments in the stablecoin landscape, and will bring other types of tokens into the SCS Framework if necessary.
MAS’ stablecoin regulatory framework will apply to single-currency stablecoins (SCS) pegged to the Singapore Dollar or any G10 currency, that are is issued in Singapore. Issuers of such SCS will have to fulfil key requirements relating to:
The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has proposed a new exemption framework for single single-family offices (SFOs) operating in Singapore. The framework introduces qualifying criteria to exempt SFOs from fund management licensing requirements. These criteria aim to subject SFOs to anti-money laundering checks by MAS-regulated financial institutions and corporate beneficial ownership reporting. MAS’s move responds to the increasing prominence of SFOs, intending to curb potential money laundering risks associated with their growth.
Under the proposed framework, SFOs must meet specific conditions to qualify for the exemption, including being a Singapore-incorporated company wholly owned by a single family. The SFO’s fund management business must cater exclusively to family members, closely related corporations, express trusts, or charities funded solely by these entities. The SFO must maintain business relations with MAS-regulated financial institutions and have a resident employee as a point of contact with MAS.
Notably, MAS emphasises that it won’t grant case-by-case exemptions to SFOs failing to meet the specified criteria. The proposed framework also mandates reporting requirements, necessitating new SFOs to submit commencement notifications and annual returns to MAS, disclosing their assets and financial relationships.
For existing SFOs, a six-month transitional period is proposed to align with the exemption framework. During this period, existing SFOs must submit a commencement notification, and their previously relied–upon licensing exemptions will be withdrawn once the notification is filed or at the end of the six-month period months.
The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has launched a public consultation on a revised framework to strengthen surveillance and defence against money laundering (ML) risks in Singapore’s Single-Family Office (SFO) sector. The revised framework will introduce a harmonised class exemption for SFOs with specific requirements to ensure that all SFOs are subject to anti-money laundering controls.
Currently, as SFOs do not manage third-party assets, they can either rely on existing class exemptions from licensing requirements under the Securities and Futures Act or apply to MAS for case-by-case exemptions. To strengthen surveillance and defence against ML risks in the SFO sector, MAS proposes to harmonise the exemption criteria for all SFOs operating in Singapore.
Specifically, to qualify for the class exemption, SFOs must:
These measures will allow MAS to better monitor SFOs operating in Singapore and address any ML risks in the sector.
The Digital Personal Data Protection Bill, 2023 received the assent of the Hon’ble President of India on 11 August 2023 to become the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (“Act”). While the Act received Presidential assent on 11th August 2023, the provisions will come into force as and when the Central Government notifies the date of enforcement in the Official Gazette. The key provisions of the Act are discussed below:
The Ministry of Law and Justice, on 11th August 2023, has published the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023 (“Amendment Act”), to amend certain enactments and to decriminalize and rationalize certain offences thereunder. The Amendment Act will come in force as and when the Central Government may notify.
The Amendment Act has set out a schedule, wherein certain revised fines and/or penalties have been set out for a list of legislative acts. Further, as per Section 3 of the Amendment Act, after the expiry of every 3 (Three) years from the date of commencement of the Amendment Act, the minimum amounts of fines and/or penalties (as set out in the schedule), will increase by 10% (Ten Percent). The revisions of few significant legislative acts, as per the schedule, are set out below:
The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940:
The Copyright Act, 1957:
The Patents Act, 1970:
The Trade Marks Act, 1999:
The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999:
The Information Technology Act, 2000:
The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002:
The Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007:
The Legal Metrology Act, 2009
Amendment to Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011
For security to benefit from AI, companies need to shore up their data
CISOs need to address the structure, management and curation of data as they pursue benefits from generative AI, according to an IDC report.
Artificial intelligence (AI) is becoming a big part of how companies keep their information safe. But some experts think we’re focusing too much on the AI technology itself, instead of the data it uses.
The data that AI relies on is crucial. If the data isn’t good, AI won’t work well. So, it’s like having a strong building, but if the foundation is weak, the building can collapse.
According to IDC analysts, who study this, AI can help with security, but it’s only as good as the data it uses. Frank Dickson from IDC says that data is like the fuel for AI in security. How we handle, manage, and organize this data is what determines whether AI will be successful in protecting us.
Right now, many companies are excited about “generative AI,” which is like a quick energy boost. It helps with specific problems but doesn’t solve everything. On the other hand, “predictive AI” is like a nutritious meal; it helps build a strong foundation for security.
To make AI work well in security, we need to make sure the data we give it is reliable. This is a big challenge because collecting and organizing security data is harder than building the AI itself.
Cybersecurity experts are naturally cautious, which is a good thing. It means they will take their time and not rush into using AI. They’ll ask tough questions and make sure AI actually makes things better.
So, if you’re a company looking to use AI for security, don’t just trust the hype. Ask your AI vendors to prove that it’s making a real difference that you can see and measure. If it can’t be measured, it might not be worth it.
Balancing cybersecurity with convenience and progress
Cybersecurity is getting better, but it’s also getting more complicated. There are more bad guys trying to hack into systems, and companies have a lot more data to protect.
Some good news is that businesses are starting to take cybersecurity seriously. They’re using new technology like generative AI to help. They’re also making sure their employees are trained to handle cybersecurity threats.
But there’s a tricky balance to maintain. Too much security can slow things down, but too little can lead to big problems. It’s like walking on a tightrope.
The biggest threats companies are worried about are things like malware, ransomware, and attacks on their computer systems. When these attacks happen, they can be really bad for business.
There are four important things to consider in cybersecurity:
Cybersecurity is always changing, and companies need to stay on top of it to keep their data safe.