satyam_upaid
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/3/2019 Satyam_Upaid
1/23
1
BEFORE THE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS (INCOME TAX)NEW DELHI
12th Day of October, 2011
P R E S E N T
Justice Mr. P.K.Balasubramanyan (Chairman)Mr. V.K. Shridhar (Member)
A.A.R. No. 885 of 2010
Name and address of the applicant : Upaid Systems Limited,Trident Chambers,Wickhams Cay, Road Town,Tortola, British Virgin Islands.
Commissioner concerned : Director of Income-tax(International Taxation)
Hyderabad
Present for the applicant : Mr. P.J. Pardiwalla, Sr.AdvocateMr. Nitin Chaudhry, C.A.Mr. Himanshu Sinha, Advocate
Present for the department : Mr. Gangadhar Panda,Addl. DIT(Int. Taxation),Hyderabad
R U L I N G[By Justice P.K. Balasubramanyan]
The applicant is a company incorporated under the laws of British
Virgin Islands. It was previously known as In touch Technologies
Holdings Limited, the predecessor of which in turn was In Touch
Technology Limited. The applicant is engaged in the business of
providing and enabling Electronic Payment Services via mobile and fixed
line telecom and other telecom services networks. Over the years, the
applicant has been conceiving, designing and developing Software
Technology relating to payment processing platforms and services. In the
year 1966, a new framework for an advanced intelligent processing
platform was conceived of. In order to exploit that invention commercially,
-
8/3/2019 Satyam_Upaid
2/23
2
appropriate software had to be designed and developed. After developing
the design, the applicant outsourced the development of software to
Satyam Enterprise Solutions Limited. On 29.5.1997, a Memorandum of
Understanding was entered into in that behalf with Satyam Enterprise
Solutions Limited. Satyam Enterprise Solutions Limited subsequently
merged with its parent Satyam Computer Services Ltd. The obligations
under the MOU with the applicant were taken over by the parent Satyam
Computer Services Limited under the scheme of amalgamation. The
Memorandum of Understanding provided that Satyam would develop
certain Operation Support Systems software which included, inter alia,
products that came to be known as Call Manager and Net Manager.
2. On 11.9.1998 as Assignment Agreement effective from 1.1.1998
was executed between the parties whereunder Satyam, after receiving
good and valuable consideration, assigned to the predecessor of the
applicant in perpetuity all worldwide right, title and interest in the software
and Intellectual Property Rights and Copyright over the software
developed. The Assignment Agreement also assigned to the applicant the
right to seek patent protection for inventions and to own all patent
applications and letters patent or similar legal protection for such
inventions in all countries throughout the world. The Assignment
Agreement was executed in the United States of America and the
governing law was the law of the United States. On 15.9.1998, the
applicant filed a provisional patent application with the United States
-
8/3/2019 Satyam_Upaid
3/23
3
Patent and Trademark Office in respect of Call Manager and Net
Manager. Satyam, along with the Assignment Agreement had also
provided assignment letters from its employees who had worked on the
innovations sought to be patented. These letters were also relied on by
the applicant before the Patent Authority.
3. The Memorandum of Understanding entered into on 29.5.1997,
was then replaced by a Services Agreement dated 19.9.1999 made
effective from 15.9.1998 under which Satyam was to continue to provide
software development services to the applicant till the end of the year
2002. The Services Agreement reaffirmed that the predecessor of the
applicant would be the owner of the Intellectual Property Rights over the
software developed by Satyam.
4. There were some omissions in the application filed before the
Patent Authority. These omissions were rectified by Satyam at the
request of the applicant and a combined declaration was filed with the
Patent Authority. Being satisfied, the Patent Authority granted Patent
947 to the applicant on 20.11.2001. Other subsidiary applications in
respect of inventive work predicated in part upon 947 Patent were also
filed by the applicant before the Patent Authority. The entirety of the
patent portfolio of the applicant, according to it, is either wholly or partially
dependent upon 947 Patent.
5. During the interregnum, Satyam had acquired 22.06% equity in the
applicant as per the share issuance agreement executed in the year 1999
-
8/3/2019 Satyam_Upaid
4/23
4
in lieu of outstanding receivables. Disputes arose between the parties, a
settlement was arrived at and a Settlement Agreement dated 31.12.2002
was executed. By it, the share issuance agreement and the Services
Agreement between the parties were terminated. Satyam ceased to be
the contract software developer for the applicant. Satyam also almost
entirely divested itself of its shares in the applicant. The agreement
affirmed that the Intellectual Property Rights over the software shall be the
sole and exclusive property of the applicant. Satyam agreed to execute
any document that may be needed in furtherance of filing and maintaining
the applications relating to the Intellectual Property.
6. According to the applicant, it subsequently discovered certain facts
which led it to believe that some of the signatures in the inventors
assignment purportedly signed by the inventor employees of Satyam and
furnished to the applicant and filed by the applicant before the Patent
Authority, were not genuine but were forgeries. This discovery was made
during the proceedings initiated by the applicant for infringement of patent,
in Texas, USA in June 2005, against Qualcomm Incorporated and Verizon
Wireless, two telecom companies on the ground that those companies
had infringed the applicants 947 patent and subsequent patents while
developing their software platforms. It was in defence of those
proceedings that the two companies produced declarations from two
employees of Satyam involved in the developing of the software, that they
had not signed the employee assignment or the combined declaration
-
8/3/2019 Satyam_Upaid
5/23
5
furnished by Satyam to the applicant based on which the patent had been
applied for and obtained by the applicant. Having failed to get any
assistance from Satyam in proving the documents as genuine, the
applicant was forced to settle the proceedings for infringement
commenced against Qualcomm and Verizon on unfavourable terms. This
was done in April 2007.
7. On 4.4.2007, the applicant filed a complaint against Satyam in the
District Court of Texas. One of the employees of Satyam was also
impleaded. The complaint underwent two amendments and the third and
final amended complaint was filed in October 2008. In its complaint, the
applicant contended that on account of forgery, fraud, misrepresentation
and breach of contractual covenants by Satyam and its employees, the
value of its entire patent portfolio had been impaired and it was forced to
settle the action against Qualcomm and Verizon for infringement of patent,
on most unfavorable terms. It accused Satyam of breach of contractual
covenants and forgery. It sought the relief of a declaration as to the
validity and enforceability of its patent under the laws of the United States,
damages resulting from fraud/negligent, misrepresentation and/or forgery
by Satyam in providing documents containing forged signatures and in
breach of contractual covenants, exemplary and punitive damages for
fraud and forgery and for interest and costs. In defence, Satyam
disowned any responsibility for the alleged forgeries and defended the
action.
-
8/3/2019 Satyam_Upaid
6/23
6
8. Satyam, challenging the jurisdiction of the District Court, Texas to
entertain the complaint, approached the Queens Bench Division of the
Commercial Court, London contending that in terms of the settlement
dated 31.12.2002, the applicant was barred from pursuing its complaint in
Texas since the agreement made in the complaint stood extinguished by
the settlement and that in any event, the complaint fell within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the English Courts. The trial judge by judgment dated
1.1.2008 dismissed the action, finding that the subject matter of the
complaint was not extinguished by the settlement and that the Texas
Court had jurisdiction to deal with the complaint. The appeal filed by
Satyam was dismissed by the Court of Appeal. A Petition for Leave to
Appeal to the House of Lords filed by Satyam was also rejected. Thus,
the applicant was enabled to pursue its complaint in the District Court,
Texas.
9. To reconcile the differences arising out of the complaint, an attempt
at Mediation was made. The attempt succeeded and the parties entered
into a Settlement Agreement on 18.7.2009 signed in Dallas, Texas, USA.
It provided for the parties to sever all ties with each other forever and for
settlement of all claims and disputes between the parties. In satisfaction
of all the claims of the applicant, Satyam agreed to pay to the applicant an
amount of $ 70 million in two installments. The first installment of $ 45
million was to be paid within 10 business days of Satyam getting the
approval of its Board of Directors and of the Boards of other companies as
-
8/3/2019 Satyam_Upaid
7/23
7
may be necessary, of getting Governmental or Regulatory approvals as
may be necessary under India law, after putting forward its best efforts for
getting them. All payments were to be made by wire transfer to a bank
of Upaids Choosing. Then followed a provision for Escrow of Funds.
The same is quoted below.
3. Escrow of Funds.
a. Within 10 business days of obtaining board approvals
referred in paragraph 9(a), Satyam will deposit the
equivalent in Indian Rupees of the First Payment and the
Final Payment in an interest bearing escrow account or
accounts in India at a reputed international bank or Indian
nationalized bank as reasonably and mutually agreed for the
purpose of securing the payment obligations in paragraph 2.
b. In the event the First Payment is made on or before 180
days from the date of this Settlement Agreement, then
Satyam shall be entitled to the principal in the amount of the
First Payment and all accrued interest thereto.
c. In the even the First Payment is made more than 180 days
after the date of this Settlement Agreement, then Satyam
shall be entitled to the principal in the amount of the First
Payment and Upaid shall receive all accrued interest with
respect to the First Payment.
-
8/3/2019 Satyam_Upaid
8/23
8
d. After the First Payment is received, Satyam shall have the
right to replace the escrowed funds securing the Final
Payment with either a bank guarantee or letter of credit in
the same amount pending receipt of the Final Payment at
which time security shall no longer be necessary.
e. After the Final Payment is received, Satyam shall be entitled
to the principal in the amount of the Final Payment and all
accrued interest thereto.
10. The settlement agreement reiterated that they intended it to be a
full and final settlement of all disputes between the parties and that the
parties intended it to sever all ties between them and to end their
relationship forever. It then proceeded to provide:
Subject to the fulfillment of paragraph 9 of the Settlement
Agreement, all prior agreements or understandings between the
parties or any of their respective present or past officers, directorsor employees, regarding any matters whatsoever are
extinguished, including the Assignment dated September 11,
1998, the Services Agreement effective as of September 15,
1998, the Share Issuance Agreement dated September 1, 1999,
the previous Settlement Agreement between the parties effective
as of December 31, 2002, any assignments between or among
Satyam, Upaid and/or individual present or former employees of
Satyam and any amendments to such agreements.Notwithstanding this provision, Upaid shall retain whatever
intellectual property rights have already been transferred to it
under any assignment or agreement strictly on an as is or
quitclaim basis without Satyam or its present or former employees
making any representation or warranty about such transfer or
-
8/3/2019 Satyam_Upaid
9/23
9
having any further obligation to perfect such transfer. Upon
dismissal with prejudice of this action, Satyam waives its rights to
preclude former employees from having contact with Upaid under
any nondisclsoure agreements signed during the pendency of this
action to the extent necessary for Upaids patents.
It was also provided:
8. Upaid will grant a perpetualworldwide, royalty free license on
all of its patents, pending patents and any future patents to
Satyam and its affiliates, including Tech M and M&M. Such
royalty free license shall not be assignable. In addition, Upaid
covenants not to sue British Telecommunications (BT) and AT&T
for patent infringement or any other claim related to its patents.
11. Thus, the payment made was for extinguishment of all rights and
obligations between the parties, for severing their business relationship
arising out of prior agreements, towards compensation for deficiency in
its patent found to exist by the applicant, for grant of perpetual world
wide royalty free licence by the applicant on all its patents, pending and
future to Satyam, subject to Satyam not having a right to assign the
licence. An undertaking of forbearance to sue two of the affiliates of
Satyam by Upaid was also incorporated.
12. Satyam did not pay the amount by wire transfer to a Bank of
Upaids choosing, but it deposited the amount into an escrow account.
Satyam seems to have insisted that it was entitled to deduct the taxes
from the amounts to be paid and that the responsibility for tax was that of
the applicant. The applicant adopted the stand that the compensation
agreed to be paid was liable to be paid without deduction of tax and the
-
8/3/2019 Satyam_Upaid
10/23
10
liability for tax, if any, should be borne by Satyam. To establish its
stand, Satyam moved the Supreme Court of the State of New York
seeking a declaration that it was entitled to deduct the taxes from the
amount to be paid. The applicant resisted that claim. It was in this
context that the applicant approached this Authority for an Advance
Ruling by invoking Section 245Q of the Income-tax Act. This Authority
allowed the application for giving a Ruling on the following questions:
(i) Is the amount receivable by the applicant from M/s. Satyam
Computer Services Ltd. (Satyam), in accordance with Paragraph
2 of the settlement agreement entered between the applicant and
Satyam on July 18, 2009 at Dallas, USA, a capital receipt in the
hands of the applicant?
(ii) If the answer to question (i) is in the affirmative, can the said
amount be treated as income under any of the specified heads
provided in the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act)?
(iii) If the answer to questions (i) and (ii) are in the affirmative, can the
said amount be considered to accrue or arise or deemed to
accrue or arise in India or upon its receipt, can it be considered to
have been received or deemed to have been received in India?
(iv) If the answers to all the above questions are in the affirmative,
what would be the basis and method of determination of taxable
income and applicable tax rate thereon?
(v) If the answer to question (i) is in the negative, i.e. the said amount
is found to be in the nature of revenue receipt, can the said
amount be considered to accrue or arise or deemed to accrue or
arise in India or upon its receipt, can it be considered to have
been received or deemed to have been received in India?
-
8/3/2019 Satyam_Upaid
11/23
11
(vi) If the answer to question (v) is in the affirmative, is the said
amount taxable under the Act?
(vii) If the answer to question (vi) is in the affirmative, what would be
the basis and method of determination of taxable income,
applicable tax rate and applicable rate of deduction of tax at
source thereon?
(viii) If the said amount is held to be taxable under the Act, and if the
court of competent jurisdiction in New York, USA holds that
Satyam is contractually bound to bear the tax payable on the said
amount, would Section 195A of the Act be applicable for the
purpose of determination of income on which tax deduction at
source will be effected?
(ix) Even if said amount is held to be taxable under the Act, and
regardless of the outcome of the adjudication given by the court of
competent jurisdiction in New York, is Satyam legally bound to
satisfy the judgment-debt arising from the afore-mentioned
settlement agreement by paying the entire amount specified in
Paragraph 2 of the aforesaid settlement agreement without any
deduction of tax to the applicant?
(x) Is the interest receivable by the applicant in terms of Paragraph
3.c of the afore-mentioned settlement agreement taxable income
under the Act and would such income be subject to tax deduction
at source under the Act?
13. Before proceeding to consider the various questions posed, it
seems proper to set down some of the findings by the Courts which may
have a bearing on the questions falling for our Ruling. The Court of
Appeal has noticed that the trial judge found that the Assignment
Agreement undoubtedly assigned the inventions and intellectual property
rights which were the subject of the provisional patent application filed
-
8/3/2019 Satyam_Upaid
12/23
12
on that date and contained co-operation obligations upon Satyam which
were intended to enable Upaid to protect those conventions and rights.
It further noticed the finding that:
the Assignment Agreement was not the subject matter of theSettlement Agreement, but was expressly preserved in full by itsterms.
The Court of Appeal then recorded its finding:
My conclusion on this short point is that the object of clause 3.1
was to ensure that Upaid retained all relevant intellectual property,
and clause 3.1.(b) is not limited to confirmation of past assignments
in the sense of transfers of property. The relevant term is will
survive and shall be governed and I am satisfied that that means
that the assignments will continue to apply in accordance with their
terms.
14. On how the right was dealt with under the Settlement Agreement,
the Court of Appeal held:
The construction point is a short one, and I agree with the Judge. Iaccept Mr. Foxtons submission that it is plain (and common ground) thatin commercial terms intellectual property was very important to the partiesand was treated separately in the Settlement Agreement. Since theAssignment Agreement was concerned exclusively with intellectualproperty it made commercial sense not to include it within the releases.
15. Thus, it is clear from this interparties judgment, which has become
final, that the parties dealt with separately the intellectual property rights
which was important to both and which had been taken assignment of
earlier by the applicant.
16. Clause 5 of the Settlement Agreement dated 18.7.2009 recognised
the right of the applicant to retain all intellectual property rights in the
-
8/3/2019 Satyam_Upaid
13/23
13
software created and under clause 8 the applicant granted to Satyam a
license on all its patents, pending and future to use the patents. No doubt,
it was described to be royalty free license.
17. The question that arises is what is the nature of the payment made
or to be made by Satyam to the applicant under this Settlement. It is
clear that various claims were involved in the complaint leading to the
settlement. The breach of obligations on the part of Satyam, complaint of
fraudulent conduct, compensation for a dent in their patent right by having
to concede the right to Qualcomm and Verizon and the costs involved in
the litigation with them and the grant of a license to Satyam to use its
patents perpetually, all formed components of the compensation agreed
upon.
18. During the hearing under section 245R(4) of the Act, it was first
submitted on behalf of the applicant that the Supreme Court of the State of
New York has upheld the claim of Satyam by holding that it was entitled to
withhold the taxes from out of the amount to be paid to the applicant under
the Settlement Agreement. This was subsequently re-affirmed by
communication dated 11.8.2011 with a prayer to withdraw question no.
(viii) from the questions admitted for a ruling. The court has decreed,
Adjudged and declared that the Settlement Agreement requires that
Upaid Systems Ltd., must cooperate with IDBI Bank to allow IDBI Bank to
withhold taxes from the $ 70 million Settlement Account in the Settlement
Agreement in anticipation of there being a tax obligation on Upaids part to
-
8/3/2019 Satyam_Upaid
14/23
14
the Indian Government authorities. We think that the proper course to
adopt is to clarify that the parties will be bound by the adjudication of Court
inter-parties now rendered, subject to any modification thereof in appeal or
further appeal therefrom.
19. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the compensation
to be paid by Satyam to the applicant is in the nature of a capital receipt
and not revenue receipt. We find that the Revenue has not joined issue
with the applicant on this aspect. It has also taken up the position that it
is a capital receipt, but has contended that it has to be taxed under the
head Capital Gains and that the gain has accrued in India.
20. Alternatively, it is contended that a part of the payment had to be
attributed to the grant by the applicant of a license to Satyam to use the
patent for all times to come and that part was liable to be taxed as royalty.
It is asserted that the payment by Satyam to the applicant has three
components.
1. Regularisation of unauthorized usages of software IPRs by
Satyam and its affiliates till the date of settlement.
2. Indemnification of damages suffered by Upaid on account of,
misrepresentation by Satyam and its employees in relation
to IPRs that are the subject matter of the settlement
agreement and;
3. Continued usage of patents after the date of settlement,
including usage of future patent rights.
-
8/3/2019 Satyam_Upaid
15/23
15
21. Of the above, the second component would spell in the realm of
capital receipt and components 1 and 3, payment for the earlier use and
the right to use the software in future might amount to royalty.
22. The settlement agreement, no doubt, recites that the liecense
granted to Satyam on all its patents, pending patents and any future
patents was royalty free. Does this recital by itself conclude the issue?
According to the applicant, it does and according to the Revenue, it does
not. It remains for us to consider it.
23. In the application, the applicant has set down the various heads as
comprised in its claim against Satyam made in the Taxes Court leading to
the mediation and settlement. The first is a declaration on the authenticity
of the signatures furnished by Satyam and a declaration of the legal status
of all its patents. The second is actual damages arising from fraud and/or
negligent misrepresentation involved in its having to give up its claim for
patent violation against Qualcomm and Verizon. The third is based on
alleged breach of the Assignment Agreement by Satyam resulting in
pecuniary loss. The fourth is damages for the defect in title to the patents
conveyed to it by Satyam. The fifth and sixth counts are for actual and
statutory damages under the concerned US Federal statute. The
seventh head of claim was punitive and exemplary damages for alleged
forgery and the eighth was for costs of all legal proceedings having to be
waived by Upaid including in the proceeding that was initiated, leading to
-
8/3/2019 Satyam_Upaid
16/23
16
the settlement. It was in the context of these claims that the settlement in
question was arrived at and Satyam agreed to pay $ 70 million while
obtaining a license for use of the patents of Upaid, world wide and in
perpetuity as it were. This was obviously something bargained for and
secured by Satyam.
24. There is no divestiture of title of Upaid to the patent and the
Intellectual Property Rights over it, earlier assigned to it by Satyam. It
does not, therefore, appear that any capital gain arises to the applicant out
of this transaction. What it has obtained is compensation for the imperfect
title to the patent earlier conveyed to it by Satyam and also for the conduct
of Satyam in leading to that situation and the costs that had to be incurred
by it in initiating legal proceedings against Satyam itself. Thus, it is not
possible to accept the argument that the applicant has earned an income
by way of capital gains taxable in India.
25. The amount quantified as compensation takes within its fold the
consideration paid by Satyam to the applicant for enabling it to use 947
Patent and all subsequent patents based on it. This is a valuable right.
Its importance has been stressed by the Court of Appeal in its judgment.
But for this license, the use by Satyam of the software or any of its
components, it created for the applicant for a consideration and it later
assigned to the applicant, would amount to an infringement of the patent
rights and the copyright of the applicant. This license to use in
perpetuity, is thus a valuable right secured by Satyam.
-
8/3/2019 Satyam_Upaid
17/23
17
26. The settlement Agreement dated 18.7.2009 recits that this grant of
perpetual worldwide right is without consideration. It is submitted that the
recital is conclusive and the Revenue cannot go behind it. On going
through the settlement deed, it is clear that the rights acquired and
secured by the applicant over the software, a literary work, and according
to the Revenue, a process as well, is acknowledged and reaffirmed. In
turn, the applicant gives a right to Satyam to use that right in perpetuity.
The recital that it is done for no consideration can only be viewed as an
attempt to avoid payment of tax on that part of the transaction. This
Authority has necessarily the power to see whether there is an attempt to
avoid the net of taxation. In the commercial world it is not normal to part
with such a valuable right for no consideration unless special
circumstances exist. Here, as a matter of fact, the applicant and Satyam
were severing all business relationship between them by entering into this
settlement. In the circumstances, the plea that the valuable right was
given away is not acceptable. The Court of Appeal has noticed how the
two parties wanted to keep this valuable right secured and specifically
provided for it. An attempt to avoid ascribing of a consideration for grant
of a perpetual license over a patent and a copyright by a mere recital that
it is royalty free cannot pass the test of the Ramasay principle or the
McDowell principle on the non-countenance of such avoidance by a
Tribunal or Court. As observed in Ramasay (1982) AC 300 by Lord
Wilberforce While obliging the court to accept documents or transactions
-
8/3/2019 Satyam_Upaid
18/23
18
found to be genuine, as such, it does not compel the court to look at a
document or a transaction in blinkers, isolated from any context to which it
properly belongs. Adopting this approach, we find that atleast a portion of
the compensation paid by Satyam to the applicant, must be ascribed to or
earmarked as consideration for licensing of the right to use the patent and
the software comprised therein. This consideration paid for granting of a
license in respect of a patent or obtaining the right to use the patent or a
process protected by copyright, is royalty as defined in the Income-tax Act.
We are therefore satisfied that a part of the $ 70 million paid as
compensation by Satyam takes in also royalty paid by Satyam for
obtaining the right to use the patented software for all time to come.
27. Then arises the question, as to what part of the compensation paid
by Satyam to the applicant ought to be attributed to the license of the right
to use the patented software and any improvement to be made on it.
Counsel for the applicant while standing firm in his argument that no
portion is taxable, suggested, in case we come to the view now taken, that
the assessing officer may be directed to determine the portion that may be
attributable to royalty and thereafter he may be directed to consider the
question whether that will be taxable in terms of Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act.
In the absence of adequate material available before us, we think that it
will be appropriate to accept this suggestion made by counsel for the
applicant. We reiterate that this suggestion was made by counsel without
-
8/3/2019 Satyam_Upaid
19/23
19
prejudice to his main contention that no part of the $ 70 million was
taxable, which contention we have rejected.
28. Other than the royalty segment of the $ 70 million to be paid by
Satyam to the applicant, we find that the rest of the compensation will be
capital receipt, but not a capital gain. It is not shown that any part of such
capital receipt is taxable under the Income-tax Act. Therefore, it has to
be ruled that the compensation paid other than the portion attributable to
royalty will not be taxable in India.
29. In the light of the above reasoning, we rule as follows on the
questions:
(i) The answer is that (subject to taxability of a portion as
royalty) the compensation of the $ 70 million paid by
Satyam to the applicant would be capital receipt in the
hands of the applicant.
(ii) In the light of the ruling on question no.(i) and the
finding that no capital gain is involved, the ruling is that the
amount less that portion attributable to royalty, cannot be
treated as income under any of the specified heads under
the Income-tax Act.
(iii) Other than the part of the compensation attributable
to royalty, the balance cannot be considered to be income
accruing or arising in India to the applicant.
-
8/3/2019 Satyam_Upaid
20/23
20
(iv) The issue is as to what would be the basis and
method of determination of the taxable income and the
applicable rate of tax thereon. The question regarding the
apportionment of the compensation and earmarking a
portion of it towards royalty has been left to be decided by
the Assessing Officer as suggested by senior counsel for
the applicant. The Assessing Officer will decide that
question. The determination of the taxable income and the
applicable tax rate will be decided by the assessing officer
after considering the relevant materials, if necessary after
calling upon the applicant to produce the same and after
hearing the applicant.
(v) Does not arise since other than the royalty segment of
the compensation, the rest is capital receipt not taxable in
India.
(vi) is also ruled on the same lines as (v).
(vii) Will be determined by the Assessing Officer, after
hearing the applicant.
(viii) In the light of the decision rendered by Supreme
Court of New York holding that Satyam is entitled to deduct
the tax payable on the compensation to be paid, the ruling
on this question is that the parties will be governed by that
-
8/3/2019 Satyam_Upaid
21/23
21
decision subject to any appeal they may have against the
decision in the appropriate court.
Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant
has not been able to withdraw any portion of the amount in
the Escrow account because of the dispute and as a
measure of safeguarding the interests of both sides, as an
interim measure, it may be directed that 10% of the amount
of $ 70 million may be deducted, without prejudice to the
contention of the applicant that no portion of the amount is
taxable and the balance released to the applicant. We
find that adopting such a course would not prejudice the
revenue because ultimately what would be taxable, would
only be the royalty element and interest as ruled in answer
to question (x) in the total compensation and deduction of
10% of $ 70 million would be adequate to cover the tax that
may be found to be due if the liability to tax a portion is
ultimately found. Therefore, we rule that the concerned
bank will be free to deduct 10% of the entire amount in
terms of Section 195 of the Act and release the balance to
the applicant from the Escrow account.
(ix) Though it was initially argued that what was involved
was a judgement debt and hence the entire amount was
liable to be paid to the applicant without deduction of any
-
8/3/2019 Satyam_Upaid
22/23
22
tax, it was not shown to us that the settlement arrived at by
the parties was made a rule of Court and hence the liability
metamorphosed into a judgement debt. We, therefore,
decline to rule on this question.
(x) The amount deposited in the Escrow account by
Satyam has earned interest. The interest is earned in
India. The applicant is now entitled to receive that interest
alongwith the principal in two instalments. We accept the
contention of the Revenue that this interest portion is
taxable in India as that is income arising in India. It is,
therefore, ruled that the interest earned on the deposit in
Escrow is taxable in the hands of the applicant.
30. Accordingly, the ruling is pronounced on this 12th day of
October, 2011.
Sd/- Sd/-(V.K. Shridhar) (P.K. Balasubramanyan)
Member Chairman
F.No. AAR/885/2010 Dated, the
This copy is certified to be a true copy of the Ruling and is sent to:
1. The applicant.2. The Director of Income-tax (International Taxation),Hyderabad3. The Joint Secretary, (FT&TR-I/II), CBDT, New Delhi.4. The Guard File.
Sd/-(Nidhi Srivastava)
Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, AAR
-
8/3/2019 Satyam_Upaid
23/23