The birth of Resident Welfare Association (for brevity ‘RWA’) is guided by Section 11(4)(e) of Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016. The said section mandates that promoter should enable the formation of RWA under the local laws. In absence of such local laws, the section mandates that RWA must be formed within 3 months from the majority of allottees having booked their apartment.

RWAs are formed primarily with an objective to protect and upkeep the welfare of all the members who are the owners of apartments forming part of such residential complex. All RWAs are incorporated with intention of ‘no profit no loss’ and guided by bye-laws which are agreed at the time of incorporation.  

Basis such bye-laws, different RWAs collect different types of fees from members for provision of certain services. The most common fees are corpus, admission fee, transfer fee, No-Objection Certificate fee and other similar items. Majority of RWAs in their bye-laws have modus operandi which must be adopted for each type of fee charged by them. The bye-laws would also contain provisions dealing with accounting treatment of such fee, purposes for which a particular fee can be used, purposes for which a particular fee cannot be used, the timing of usage, the necessary approval for such usage, the nature of investments into which the idle funds of RWAs can be made into and various other aspects. Apart from the said fee, RWAs will also collect monthly maintenance charges from all the members against provision of specific services. The services will include the upkeep of common area, common amenities, security services and various others.

Read more: Resident Welfare Associations – Exemption under GST – Madras High Court Rules in favour of RWA

In this article, we get to one of the recent interesting judgment in the arena of international taxation. The judgment is authored by Honourable Vice President, Mr Pramod Kumar of Mumbai ITAT[1]. As a student and learner of International Taxation, I would never miss reading a judgment of Mr Pramod Kumar. The way he interprets the law, the vast knowledge he possess and adequate application to the facts of the case, is no match. Let us proceed to understand the facts in the matter of Morgan Stanley Mauritius Co Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation Circle, 3(2)(2), Mumbai[2].

Morgan Stanely Mauritius Co Limited (for brevity ‘MS - Mauritius’) is a company incorporated and fiscally domiciled in Mauritius and has a tax residency certificate issued by Mauritius Revenue Authorities. The assessee is an investor in Indian Depository Receipts (for brevity ‘IDR’) issued by Standard Chartered Bank – Indian Branch (for brevity ‘SCB – India’). The underlying assets of IDRs are the shares of Standard Chartered Bank Plc (for brevity ‘SCB -UK’), held by the custodian Bank of New York (for brevity ‘BNY-US’). SCB – UK is listed on London Stock Exchange and the IDRs so issued are listed on Indian Stock Exchange.

Read more: Payment Of Income Vs. Treaty Protection - Morgan Stanely - Classic Case Of Treaty Interpretation...

In this edition, we bring you, an article on the recent judgment of Honourable Madras High Court in the matter of Greenwood Owners Association, wherein the High Court has turned down the plea of tax authorities that the exemption notification has to be construed in a different manner than desired. This judgment brings a respite to the Resident Welfare Associations, who are often got caught up on what amounts tax has to be paid. This judgment brings more clarity and certainty.

The next article ison the recent judgment of Honourable Mumbai Tribunal in the matter of Morgan Stanley, where the tax treaties are called for interpretation. In his excellent analysis, Mr Pramod Kumar, has held that the treaty can be applied even though the resident of contracting state is not making the payment of income, as long as the income is subjected to tax in that state.

I hope that you will have good time reading this edition and please do share your feedback. I will also urge clients to mail us topics or issues on which you want us to deliberate in our future editions, so that we can contribute to the same.

Read more: SBS Wiki E Journal July 2021

In this edition, we bring you, the second part of article on the most complicated issues in direct taxation, dealing with taxation in cases where there is a change in partnership firms and other specified entities. The said issue gets complicated when the firm tries to settle the partner with a capital asset or stock in trade or money or in a combination thereof. In the earlier part, we have introduced the amendments made qua Finance Act, 2021 to the said provisions. In this edition, we deal with the case studies surrounding the said aspect. We request you to read the same and share your views and feedback. We would have definitely missed one or other points, considering the vastness of the topic. We would be glad to cover the same in next editions.

The next article is another compliance under withholding obligations introduced vide Section 194Q. The said provision has assumed significance since the same is made effective from 1^st July 2021. A similar provision introduced on seller vide Section 206C(1H) in last year budget, also added confusion, when the Section 194Q came into play. Further, the deduction of tax at higher rate, in case of specified persons also coming into effective from 1^st July 2021, made it hard for the tax payers to accept and digest. We have come with a detailed article covering all the issues mentioned above.  

I hope that you will have good time reading this edition and please do share your feedback. I will also urge clients to mail us topics or issues on which you want us to deliberate in our future editions, so that we can contribute to the same.

Key Topics:

DIRECT TAXATION

• PARTNER VIS-A-VIS CAPITAL GAINS - VERSION 2.0 - PART II

DIRECT TAX

• ALL ABOUT SECTION 194Q, HIGHER RATES OF TAX AND ISSUES THEREOF