Skip to main content

Potential Direct Tax Implications for Digital Economy

Legal Capsule by LexCounsel

Multinational companies such as Google, Facebook, Airbnb etc., engaged in providing digital services in different countries, without any physical presence, are likely to be adversely impacted by the changing international tax regime. The tax challenges arising from digitalisation of the economy were identified as one of the main areas of focus of the Base Erosion and Profit Sharing (BEPS) Action Plan, leading to the 2015 BEPS Action 1 Report on ‘Addressing the Tax Challenges of the Digital Economy’. Thereafter, the focus of the countries has been to draw up a conclusive plan for the governments’ right to tax multinationals, through the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), which is currently working on releasing a methodology for such taxation, by 2020.

OECD has prepared a proposed “Unified Approach”, designed to address the tax challenges arising from digitalisation of the economy and to grant new taxing rights to the countries where users of digitalised services are based. It has been suggested that the allocation of a new taxing right to countries, through new nexus and profit allocation rules, should recognise that in the new globalised and digitalised economy, a range of businesses can project themselves into daily lives of the users, interact with their consumer base and create meaningful value without traditional physical presence in the market. Let us briefly assess the two fundamental rules being considered by OECD:

Nexus Rule: Presently, in any jurisdiction, a non-resident company is subject to tax on its business profits only if such company has a ‘permanent establishment’ in such jurisdiction. Digitalisation of economy or provision of digital services have strained the applicability of the ‘permanent establishment’ rule, as companies are now increasingly doing business across jurisdictions and interacting with customers from remote locations, without having a physical presence within the respective jurisdiction(s).

It is thus proposed to introduce a new ‘nexus’ rule by defining a ‘revenue threshold’ within a market which would address the issue where a business has a sustained and significant involvement within a jurisdiction’s economy irrespective of the extent of its physical presence in such jurisdiction.

Profit Allocation Rule: Upon determination of a country’s right to tax profits of a non-resident enterprise, the next pertinent question is determining the quantum of profits allocated to a jurisdiction, i.e., the profits of the non-resident enterprise as would be taxable in such country. This issue is presently governed by Article 7 (Business Profits) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) as is executed between two countries. Considering that the new ‘nexus rule’, which would entitle a country to tax profits based on revenue threshold, as opposed to physical presence, it would not be possible to use the existing profit allocation rules and mechanism laid down under the DTAA.

It has thus been proposed that the new ‘profit allocation rule’ would go beyond the arms’ length principal as well as the limitations on tax implications being determined by reference to physical presence only.

While the aforesaid principles are presently being contemplated to arrive at a consensus-based solution by 2020, there are a number of issues/questions which need to be considered for imposing the new tax including:
  • making amendments to the DTAA, to include the new principles for imposing tax on companies engaged in providing services without having physical presence;
  • amending the domestic tax laws by each jurisdiction based on the consensus-based approach, as would finally be formulated; and
  • defining the formula for determining the ‘revenue threshold’, which would be a significant component for the proposed ‘nexus rule’.
Amendments to the Indian Tax Laws:

Interestingly, the Indian Government vide the Finance Act, 2018 introduced the concept of ‘significant economic presence’ within the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act) with an intention of covering the companies providing services in India, without physical presence, within the ambit of the IT Act.

In terms of section 9 of the IT Act, any and all income accruing or arising, whether directly or indirectly, through or from any ‘business connection’ in India, or through or from any property in India, or through or from any asset, or through the transfer of a capital asset situated in India, is deemed to be arising or accrued in India and is subject to imposition of tax under the IT Act. Presently, the term ‘business connection’ has inter alia been defined to include any business activity carried out through a person, who acting on behalf of the non-resident has and habitually exercise in India, an authority to conclude contracts on behalf of the non-resident or habitually concludes contracts or habitually plays the principal role leading to conclusion of contracts by that non-resident.

However, section 9 of the IT Act has been amended vide the Finance Act, 2018 but with effect from April 1, 2019, to include Explanation 2A which clarifies that the ‘significant economic presence’ of a non-resident in India shall constitute ‘business connection’ in India and the term ‘significant economic presence’ has been defined to mean:
  • transaction in respect of any goods, services or property carried out by a non-resident in India including provision of download of data or software in India, if the aggregate of payments arising from such transaction or transactions during the previous year exceeds such amount as may be prescribed; or
  • systematic and continuous soliciting of business activities or engaging in interaction with such number of users as may be prescribed, in India through digital means:
Provided that the transactions or activities shall constitute significant economic presence in India, whether or not:

(i) the agreement for such transactions or activities is entered in India; or
(ii) the non-resident has a residence or place of business in India; or
(iii) the non-resident renders services in India.

It is noteworthy that this is not the first instance when the companies even without having their physical presence in India, are subjected to compliance implications in India. Section 2(42) of the Companies Act, 2013 has defined the term ‘foreign company’ as any company or body corporate incorporated outside India, which:

a. has a place of business in India whether by itself or through an agent, physically or through electronic mode; and
b. conducts any business activity in India in any other manner.

Thus, it appears that the Companies Act, 2013 intends to regulate a company incorporated outside India but is conducting business in India through electronic mode, irrespective of such company having a physical presence in India or not.

Similarly, under the Goods and Service Tax Act (GST Act), ‘Online Information Database Access and Retrieval’ (OIDAR) services have been classified as category of services provided through the medium of internet and received by the recipient online without having any physical interface with the supplier of such services. OIDAR services have been defined to mean services whose delivery is mediated by information technology over the internet or an electronic network and the nature of which renders their supply essentially automated and involving minimal human intervention and includes electronic services, such as advertising on the internet, providing cloud services, provision of e-books, movie, music, software and other intangibles through telecommunication network or internet.

As regards taxability of the OIDAR service, it has been clarified that where the supplier of such service is located outside India and the recipient of such service is a business entity (registered person) located in India, GST would be imposed under the reverse charge mechanism and the recipient in India who is a registered entity under the GST will be liable to pay GST under reverse charge and undertake necessary compliances. Where the recipient of service in India is not a business entity and is an individual consumer, the supplier of services located in a non-taxable territory shall be the person liable for paying GST on supply of such services.

Thus, even the GST Act covers the entities which may be located outside India but would be engaged in providing services in India through digital mode.

It is evident that the Indian Government has already taken significant steps in imposing tax on profits being generated by a company without having physical presence in India. However, the concept of ‘significant economic presence’ for the direct tax purposes has not yet been made effective as the rules for imposition of tax are yet to be formulated. It is likely that the said rules will be made effective only pursuant to the consensus-based approach being formulated to ensure that the Indian tax principles are in tandem with the approach proposed to be followed globally.

If you have questions or would like additional information on the material covered herein, please contact:

Ms. Seema Jhingan, Partner

Mr. Dhruv Manchanda, Principal Associate

LexCounsel, Law Offices C-10, 
Gulmohar Park New Delhi 110 049,
INDIA. Tel.:+91.11.4166.2861 

Popular posts from this blog

VC Interview: Shailendra Singh of Sequoia Capital India

In a recent interview to Venture Intelligence, Shailendra Singh discussed some of the firm’s newer investments in the early stage segment including in the online payments space, the progress at a few existing portfolio companies and the active role the firm is playing in helping its portfolio companies scale and succeed in India and globally. Prior to joining the firm in 2006, Singh was a strategy consultant at Bain & Company in New York and before that, an entrepreneur in the digital media industry.

Venture Intelligence: How does Sequoia go about identifying potential early stage investments in India? Is there anything different you are doing today than, say, a couple of years back?

Shailendra Singh: There is a lot more focus on technology investing and early stage investing. In general, as you might remember a few years ago, we were doing primarily growth investing but in the past 18-odd months, we have had a very strong focus on early stage and that’s continuing. In terms of how…

ChrysCapital and Sequoia Capital India grab two awards at APEX’19 PE-VC Awards

Mumbai, India, Feb 27, 2019: ChrysCapital and Sequoia Capital bagged two awards each as part of the “Awards for Private Equity Excellence” (APEX)event organized by Venture Intelligence. 

ChrysCapital bagged the Private Equity Fund Raise of 2018 Award (Closed $850 M Fund VIII within 4 months of launch) and the Private Equity Investor of 2018 Award (for its Exits from LiquidHub with 4x in dollar terms (within 4 years of its $53-M investment), AU Small Finance Bank with 11.5x return,  Torrent Pharma with 2.95x, City Union Bank with 2.83x, L&T Infotech with 2.56x)

Sequoia Capital India won the Early Stage VCInvestor(the firm registered 10x+ exits in Byjus Classes and SCIOInspire) and VC Fund Raise of 2018 (the firm closed an almost $700-M Fund VI).

Award Winners at APEX'19 PE-VC Awards

The event opened with a Fireside Chat with Kiran Reddy, CEO of SPI Group interviewed by his long time friend and colleague Vineeth Vijayraghavan.

Snapshots of the Awards Ceremony: (L-R) Gopal Srinivasan, …

PE investments in 2018 crosses $33-B to set new all-time high

Big Ticket investments in consumer apps Swiggy & Byju’s dominates year-end activity, even as investments in Core Sectors slow down
Private Equity (PE) investments in India rose to their highest ever figure of $33.1 billion in 2018 (across 720 transactions), according to data from Venture Intelligence (, a research service focused on private company financials, transactions and their valuations. While PE investments have already surpassed the previous high - $24.3 Billion across 734 deals in 2017 - in the first nine months of 2018, the mega investments in Consumer Internet & Mobile startups such as Swiggy and Byjus towards the year-end, helped the 2018 total vault by 36% year-on-year. (Note: These figures include Venture Capital investments, but exclude PE investments in Real Estate.) The year witnessed 81 PE investments worth $100 million or more (accounting for 77% of the total investment value during the period), compared to 47 such transac…

Private Equity investments up 26% to $10-B in Q1’19

Press Release
Private Equity and Venture Capital firms invested a record $10.1 Billion (across 159 deals) during the quarter ended March 2019, according to data from Venture Intelligence, a research service focused on private company financials, transactions and their valuations. The investment value increased 26% compared to the $8.0 Billion (across 208 transactions) recorded in the same period in 2018 and 39% higher than the immediate previous quarter (which had witnessed $7.3 Billion being invested across 178 transactions). (Note: These figures include Venture Capital investments, but exclude PE investments in Real Estate).
The latest quarter witnessed 23 PE investments worth $100 million or more (with 6 of them $500-M or above) compared to 17 such transactions in the same period last year. Infrastructure related companies (especially in Energy, Roads and Telecom) accounted for 48% of the investment value during the period - accounting for $4.9 Billion (across 16 deals), compared t…

"Leveraged stock purchase led Arvind Rao to go astray": Forbes India

Forbes India has an article on the series of events leading to the recent controversial exit of Arvind Rao, Co-founder & CEO of listed Mobile VAS firm OnMobile.

On November 23, 2010, Arvind Rao, the 53-year-old co-founder and CEO of OnMobile, bought approximately 6 lakh shares of his company from the open market, representing a little over 1 percent of the company’s total shares....At Rs 277 a share, he had to pony up nearly Rs 16.5 crore to acquire them....So he went ahead and borrowed money to buy the shares, thinking nothing of the interest it entailed or the fact that he’d need to put up nearly half his existing shareholding as collateral...OnMobile’s shares continued to fall from those levels, while Rao’s interest payments ballooned.

...Motivated by OnMobile’s growth all these years, he had never paid much attention to his salary, most of which went towards the monthly rental on his sea-facing apartment in Mumbai and his BMW 7-Series, both paid directly by the company. He reque…