Indian tax authorities’ aggressive stance on cross-border transactions of multinationals may have caused many of them to fret but some seem to have turned pliant. Mobile handset maker Nokia has invoked the India Finland Double Tax Avoidance Treaty for an out-of-the-court settlement of its R2,000-crore-plus tax dispute in India. The I-T department has claimed that tax is payable on payments made by the MNC’s Indian arm to its Finnish parent for the use of the latter’s software in handsets made in India.
If New Delhi agrees to this under the mutual agreement procedure (MAP) of the tax treaty, Indian and Finnish tax officials will put their heads together to arrive at a consensus on how much of the group’s profits should be attributed to each country and decide the tax liability accordingly.
“We can confirm that the mutual agreement procedure under the India-Finland tax treaty has indeed been invoked, but given the fact that the tax case remains open, I’m afraid we cannot comment on any details at this stage. Nokia looks forward to a prompt and just resolution to the matter,” a spokesperson for Nokia told FE.
MAP, a closed-door meeting between tax authorities in which the entity involved in the dispute is not allowed to take part and is only informed of the progress, is a taxpayer-friendly scheme, since the outcome is binding on the department but not on the company. “In case of an adverse outcome, the tax payer would still be able to approach courts and other quasi-judicial platforms under domestic law to get the grievance addressed,” explained Amit Maheshwari, partner, Ashok Maheshwary & Associates. Although MAP is applicable only for the international transaction and for the year it is approved, it has a persuasive effect on the authorities in subsequent years, he said.
The I-T department considers Nokia in default of deducting tax on the payments made to its Finnish parent for use of software, which the authorities hold as royalty. The company last month got an interim stay order from the Delhi High Court against any coercive action from the department, that will be in force until