Latest news with #J.B.Pardiwala
The Print
a day ago
- The Print
Sharda University suicide case: Report in SC cites ‘delays, protocol violations, scene compromised'
Taking note of the rising number of student suicides, a Supreme Court bench of justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan appointed Bhatt as an amicus curiae after taking suo motu cognisance of news reports on the two instant cases. Senior advocate Aparna Bhatt also submitted a report Monday on a similar suicide incident reported from IIT Kharagpur the same day as the Sharda University case. In this case, her report said, there was no violation of legal procedures. New Delhi: A Supreme Court-appointed amicus curiae has flagged Sharda University's failure to promptly notify the police about the alleged suicide of a second-year dental student, noting it was the parents who registered the FIR. When Bhatt's report was placed before it, the bench enquired about the problems affecting these institutions and directed that investigations be expedited. It asked what the management at these institutes are doing to address such cases. ThePrint has reached Sharda University, located in Greater Noida, for comment via email. The report will be updated if and when a response is received. Also Read: Beyond ragging & stress, task force formed by SC to review policies aimed at curbing student suicides The report The amicus curiae's report stated that in the IIT Kharagpur case, where a fourth-year student died allegedly by suicide 18 July, the parents were immediately informed and an FIR was lodged by the institution. An ambulance was called, and after police permission, the room was forcibly opened for a doctor's examination, who declared the student dead. In contrast, the report says, in the Sharda University case, the parents were not informed promptly. Also, neither the wardens nor university authorities contacted the police or arranged for an ambulance. 'The body was brought down by security guards and carried on a bedsheet by four hostel staff members. The warden eventually called the parents, informing them that their daughter was in serious condition in the emergency room but did not mention suicide. It is assumed other students had already informed the parents. No call was made to the PCR,' the report said. It further noted that a 'hospital doctor' called the police. The body was taken to a government hospital in Noida for post-mortem and later released to the family for last rites. 'The FIR was registered by the parents, not the university. The family has not been in contact with either the university or police since,' the report added. While no one was named in the FIR in the IIT Kharagpur case, two individuals mentioned in the purported suicide note by the Sharda University student have been arrested. The post-mortem of the Sharda University student confirmed death by asphyxiation, and the investigation is ongoing, the report says. But, post-mortem details and investigation status in the IIT Kharagpur case remain unclear due to police non-responsiveness, the report added. The 21-year-old student's suicide was the fourth such case at IIT Kharagpur in the past five months. The report noted he had a good academic record (CGP 8.5) with only an insignificant dip in his last semester. He returned from holidays around 15-16 July. On the first day of college reopening, he stayed alone in his room as his roommates had not returned. Around 11 am, his father asked hostel staff to clean the room. When the staff checked, he found the student hanging from the ceiling fan. The report does not mention why did the father call the hostel staff. The police were informed within 20 minutes, an ambulance was called, and the parents were promptly notified, the report says, adding an FIR was registered. Sharda University's 'delayed' response According to the report, the police said they received a call past 10 pm from the parents/family and the family had reached the hospital before they could arrive. 'The parents were very agitated. The series of protocols to be followed in such cases were violated by the university staff. The body had to be moved by the police, but the university staff took it upon themselves to do that. The scene was thus compromised because the warden entered and multiple people left fingerprints in the room,' the report stated, quoting the police version. Secondly, the university hospital issued the medico-legal certificate (MLC) to the police, which is also against protocol. However, officers clarified that the MLC only mentioned that she had no pulse and so on, but no internal examination of the body was conducted by the university hospital, according to the report. The police said the room was locked when they arrived, and they remained present until the forensic team reached to assess the scene, according to the report. 'They (police) found the suicide note inside her notebook on her study table and even though the mother had identified the handwriting, the police had not yet verified if the handwriting was hers.' 'The police state that there was at least a 40-minute delay in taking the body to the hospital even though the hospital was just five minutes away,' the report stated. (Edited by Ajeet Tiwari) Also Read: SC issues pan-India guidelines to protect mental health of students in colleges & coaching centres
Time of India
5 days ago
- Business
- Time of India
SC says Hyatt's India operations are taxable under PE norms
In a ruling that has significant implications for multinational companies operating in India, the Supreme Court Thursday held that UAE-headquartered Hyatt International Southwest Asia , which provides hotel consultancy and advisory services in India as part of its business operations, has a fixed place Permanent Establishment (PE) in India for tax purposes. Upholding a Delhi High Court order that ruled against the hotel company, a bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan dismissed various the appeals by Hyatt International Southwest Asia Ltd, while affirming the findings of the HC that Hyatt had a fixed place PE in India within the meaning of Article 5(1) of the DTAA, and that, the income received under the strategic oversight services agreements (SOSA) is attributable to such PE and is, therefore, taxable in India. Explore courses from Top Institutes in Please select course: Select a Course Category Public Policy Leadership PGDM Finance Design Thinking Cybersecurity CXO Technology Digital Marketing Data Science Artificial Intelligence Healthcare MBA Project Management Operations Management Data Science Degree Management Others others healthcare Product Management MCA Skills you'll gain: Duration: 12 Months IIM Calcutta Executive Programme in Public Policy and Management Starts on undefined Get Details Skills you'll gain: Economics for Public Policy Making Quantitative Techniques Public & Project Finance Law, Health & Urban Development Policy Duration: 12 Months IIM Kozhikode Professional Certificate Programme in Public Policy Management Starts on Mar 3, 2024 Get Details The top court said that was undisputed that Hyatt's executives and employees paid frequent and regular visits to India to oversee operations and implement SOSA. 'The finding of the assessing officer, based on travel logs and job functions, establish continuous and coordinated engagement, even though no single individual exceeded the 9-month stay threshold,' according to SC Under Article 5(2)(i) of the agreement between the government of India and the United Arab Emirates for avoidance of double taxation (DTAA) Under Article 5(2)(i) of the DTAA, the relevant consideration is the continuity of business presence in aggregate – not the length of stay of each individual employee. Once it is found that there is continuity in the business operations, the intermittent presence or return of a particular employee becomes immaterial and insignificant in determining the existence of a PE, Justice Mahadevan, writing for the bench stated, adding the HC was correct in concluding that Hyatt's role was not confined to high-level decision making, but extended to substantial operational control and implementation. The Dubai-based company's ability to enforce compliance, oversee operations, and derive profit-linked fee from the hotel's earnings, demonstrate a clear and continuous commercial nexus, and control with the hotel's core functions, the judgment said, adding that this nexus satisfied the condition necessary for the constitution of a fixed place of PE under Article 5(1) of the India – UAE DTAA. The top court further said that 'the extent of control, strategic decision-making, and influence exercised by the appellant clearly establish that business was carried on through the hotel premises, satisfying the conditions under Article 5(1)…the hotel itself was the situs of the appellant's primary business operations, carried out under its direct supervision and aligned with its commercial interests.' Welcoming the ruling, Amit Baid of BTG Advaya said that "the judgment provides a clear conceptual framework for determining PE thresholds—frequent, regular visits by employees, rather than the duration of individual stays, is the key factor; once continuity of business presence is established, the return or rotation of individuals becomes irrelevant; and operational control, oversight, and income linked to core functions establish a commercial nexus necessary for a PE. The ruling could set a precedent for PE determinations in cases involving frequent employee travel to India." The judgement establishes that substantive operational involvement, such as orchestrating policies, directly overseeing operations, and controlling implementation, will be closely scrutinised when determining the existence of a fixed place PE in India, said Varun Gakhar, Research Associate at Janssen-Sanghavi & Associates. 'In essence, oversight that crosses into operational control may trigger domestic tax exposure under Indian tax treaties. This judgement will have to be analysed closely by multinationals, as determining whether a PE exists is a very fact- and circumstance-specific question,' he added. In 2008, Hyatt had entered into two strategic oversight services agreements with Asian Hotels Ltd. One was in respect of hotel Hyatt Regency, Delhi owned by Asian Hotels, and the other pertained to a hotel in Mumbai. Under the terms of the agreement, Hyatt agreed to provide strategic planning services and "know-how" to ensure that Hyatt Regency was developed and operated as an efficient and a high quality international full-service hotel. Asian Hotels was thereafter reorganised and its name was subsequently changed to Asian Hotels (North) Ltd., which continued to own Hyatt Regency. For the Assessment Year 2009-10, Hyatt filed its return of income declaring 'Nil' income and claiming a refund of around Rs 88 lakh. The Assessing Officer had passed assessment orders for 2009-18, holding that Hyatt's activities constituted a business connection under Section 9(1)(i) of the Income Tax Act; a PE under Article 5 of the DTAA; royalties and fees for technical services under both the Income Tax Act and DTAA. However, Hyatt asserted that its income was not taxable under the Act as there was no specific Article under the DTAA for taxing Fees for Technical Services. It further stated that it did not have any fixed place of business, office, or branch in India, and that the presence of its employees in India during the relevant previous year did not exceed the nine-month threshold under Article 5(2) of the DTAA. Therefore, the appellant claimed that it did not have a PE in India and that its business income was not taxable under Article 7 of the DTAA. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in December 2019 and then the HC rejected Hyatt's contention that it did not have a PE in India.
Mint
5 days ago
- Business
- Mint
Hyatt faces India tax blow as Supreme Court confirms ‘Permanent Establishment' status
In a crucial ruling with broad implications on how multinational companies are taxed in India, the Supreme Court on Thursday held that UAE-based Hyatt International Southwest Asia, which provides hotel advisory services in India, has a taxable Permanent Establishment (PE) in the country. A bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan upheld Delhi High Court's earlier decision, which had ruled that Hyatt's Indian PE must be treated as a distinct taxable entity. The judgment is significant as it clarifies that multinational companies can be taxed in India if they exercise substantial operational control here, even without long-term employee presence. The court held that a PE should be treated as a separate taxable entity, meaning India can tax profits attributable to the PE even if the foreign parent company incurs overall global losses. The apex court noted that Hyatt's executives and employees made frequent and regular visits to India to supervise operations and implement business decisions. While no single employee stayed beyond the nine-month threshold under Article 5(2)(i) of the India-UAE Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA), the assessing officer's findings proved a continuous and coordinated business presence. Hyatt had approached the Supreme Court challenging the September 2024 Delhi High Court Full Bench judgment, which had held that Hyatt's Indian PE was taxable regardless of the company's global profitability. The top court agreed with the High Court's conclusion that Hyatt's role extended beyond high-level decision-making to substantial operational control and implementation in India. Its ability to enforce compliance, oversee hotel operations, and earn profits linked to hotel revenues established a clear and continuous commercial nexus with its Indian operations, satisfying the fixed place PE conditions under the DTAA. Hyatt had argued that under Article 7 of the India-UAE DTAA, India could tax the PE's profits only if the foreign enterprise as a whole was profitable. However, tax authorities maintained that the PE should be assessed as a separate and independent entity, regardless of the parent company's global financial performance. 'The judgment provides a clear conceptual framework for determining PE thresholds—frequent, regular visits by employees, rather than the duration of individual stays, are the key factor. Once continuity of business presence is established, the return or rotation of individuals becomes irrelevant. Operational control, oversight, and income linked to core functions establish the commercial nexus necessary for a PE. This ruling could set a precedent for PE determinations in cases involving frequent employee travel to India,' said Amit Baid, head of tax at BTG Advaya, a disputes and transactional law firm. Under Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs), a Permanent Establishment (PE) is a fixed place of business, such as a branch, office, factory, or dependent agent, through which a foreign company operates in another country. Article 5 of the India-UAE DTAA defines what constitutes a PE, including fixed place PE, agency PE, and service PE. Having a PE in India gives Indian tax authorities the right to tax profits attributable to that PE, treating it like a local entity, irrespective of the parent company's global results. Article 7 allows India to tax only the profits linked to the PE's activities, calculated as if it were an independent enterprise. Foreign enterprises without a PE in India are not taxed here on business profits. The Hyatt PE taxation case originated when Indian tax authorities assessed that Hyatt had enough presence in India to be taxed, as its executives frequently visited and controlled hotel operations, despite no single employee staying long-term. These assessments dated back to 2011 onwards. Hyatt challenged the findings in the Delhi High Court in 2020, arguing that under the tax treaty, India could tax the PE only if the global enterprise was profitable. In January 2023, a Division Bench of the High Court referred the matter to a Full Bench for deeper examination. In September 2024, the Full Bench ruled that Hyatt did have a PE in India because of its continuous operational involvement and held that the PE should be taxed as a separate entity. Hyatt then appealed to the Supreme Court, leading to Thursday's ruling.
Time of India
6 days ago
- Business
- Time of India
SC upholds GST exemption for electricity regulators, dismisses govt's plea
In a big relief to the regulatory bodies, the Supreme Court has upheld the Delhi High Court 's ruling that fees collected by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission ( CERC ) and the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission ( DERC ) for the supply of electricity or grant of electricity distribution licences or as annual/other fees are exempt from Goods and Services Tax (GST). The HC had in January also quashed the show cause notices (SCNs) issued by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence demanding an 18% tax on fees received by CERC and DERC for discharging their regulatory functions. It held that the demand notices were 'arbitrary and unsustainable.' 'We do not find any good grounds to entertain these special leave petitions (by Directorate General of GST Intelligence), a SC bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan said, while endorsing the HC's view that the GST department had clearly failed to grasp the "indubitable fact" that these regulatory functions were being discharged by a quasi-judicial body which had all the trappings of a tribunal. The department had challenged the HC order alleging that the power regulators were not discharging their GST liabilities on amounts received as tariff and licence fees from various power utilities as these functions of the regulators fell under the category of "support services" to electricity transmission and distribution service providers. The GST authorities in the SCN's had also alleged that CERC had even failed to carry out a correct self-assessment of its tax liability, thus failing to discharge its integrated GST of Rs 113 crore between April 2019 to March 2023. A similar notice was issued to the Delhi power regulator. However, the HC had rejected the GST authorities' stand, saying it found 'unable to accept, affirm, or even fathom the conclusion that regulation of tariff, inter-state transmission of electricity, or the issuance of licence would be liable to be construed as activities undertaken or functions discharged in the furtherance of business." According to HC, "the grant of a licence to transmit or distribute (electricity) is clearly not in furtherance of business or trade but in extension of the statutory obligation placed upon a commission to regulate those subjects," the high court had said. The Electricity Act, 2003, makes no distinction between the regulatory and adjudicatory functions vested in and conferred upon an electricity commission, it had added. Those functions are placed in the hands of a quasi-judicial body enjoined to regulate and administer electricity distribution, it had said. "Electricity, undoubtedly, is a natural resource which vests in the State. We have thus no hesitation in observing that the SCNs (show cause notices) infringe the borders of the incredible and inconceivable," the January order stated.
Time of India
6 days ago
- Business
- Time of India
SC upholds GST exemption for electricity regulators, dismisses govt's plea
In a significant win for regulatory bodies, the Supreme Court has upheld the Delhi High Court's decision, exempting the fees collected by the CERC and DERC from GST. This ruling dismisses demands for an 18% tax on regulatory fees, affirming that these bodies perform quasi-judicial functions, not support services. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads In a big relief to the regulatory bodies, the Supreme Court has upheld the Delhi High Court 's ruling that fees collected by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission ( CERC ) and the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission ( DERC ) for the supply of electricity or grant of electricity distribution licences or as annual/other fees are exempt from Goods and Services Tax (GST).The HC had in January also quashed the show cause notices (SCNs) issued by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence demanding an 18% tax on fees received by CERC and DERC for discharging their regulatory functions. It held that the demand notices were 'arbitrary and unsustainable.''We do not find any good grounds to entertain these special leave petitions (by Directorate General of GST Intelligence), a SC bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan said, while endorsing the HC's view that the GST department had clearly failed to grasp the "indubitable fact" that these regulatory functions were being discharged by a quasi-judicial body which had all the trappings of a department had challenged the HC order alleging that the power regulators were not discharging their GST liabilities on amounts received as tariff and licence fees from various power utilities as these functions of the regulators fell under the category of "support services" to electricity transmission and distribution service GST authorities in the SCN's had also alleged that CERC had even failed to carry out a correct self-assessment of its tax liability, thus failing to discharge its integrated GST of Rs 113 crore between April 2019 to March 2023. A similar notice was issued to the Delhi power the HC had rejected the GST authorities' stand, saying it found 'unable to accept, affirm, or even fathom the conclusion that regulation of tariff, inter-state transmission of electricity, or the issuance of licence would be liable to be construed as activities undertaken or functions discharged in the furtherance of business."According to HC, "the grant of a licence to transmit or distribute (electricity) is clearly not in furtherance of business or trade but in extension of the statutory obligation placed upon a commission to regulate those subjects," the high court had said. The Electricity Act, 2003, makes no distinction between the regulatory and adjudicatory functions vested in and conferred upon an electricity commission, it had added. Those functions are placed in the hands of a quasi-judicial body enjoined to regulate and administer electricity distribution, it had said. "Electricity, undoubtedly, is a natural resource which vests in the State. We have thus no hesitation in observing that the SCNs (show cause notices) infringe the borders of the incredible and inconceivable," the January order stated.
