14. INCOME TAXES

The following table accounts for the differences between the federal statutory tax rate of 35% and the Company’s overall effective tax rate:


	Three Months Ended September 30,						Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2014			2013			2014			2013
Statutory provision		35.0	%		35.0	%		35.0	%		35.0	%
State taxes, net of federal benefit		0.8	%		0.5	%		0.4	%		0.2	%
City taxes		0.1	%		—			0.1	%		—
Foreign effective tax rates different from US statutory rate		(15.3	)%		(12.1	)%		(14.0	)%		(11.1	)%
Tax reserve		0	%		(1.4	)%		(0.5	)%		(0.5	)%
Valuation Allowance		1.0	%		—			1.0	%		—

Effective Income Tax Rate		21.6	%		22.0	%		22.0	%		23.6	%

Syntel India has made investments in preference shares and debt based mutual funds. Under Indian income tax, the capital gains are computed after deducting the indexed cost of acquisition (purchase) from the full value of consideration. The cost of acquisition of the investment will be increased by applying the cost of inflation index (“CII”). Once the CII is applied to the cost of acquisition, this amount becomes the indexed cost of acquisition of the investment. In computing capital gains arising from the transfer of a long term capital asset, a deduction can be claimed for the cost of acquisition and the cost of improvement, after indexing them.

A notification issued by the central government in June of 2014 has resulted in there being a higher rate of indexing and accordingly higher deferred tax assets, which the Company may not be able to realize. Accordingly, the Company has created a valuation allowance of $2.267 million including $0.640 million related to a discrete tax item, resulting in a net tax charge to the income statement of $1.627 million for the three months ended June 30, 2014. The tax rate for the nine months ended September 30, 2014, includes a tax charge of $1.67 million, which related to a valuation allowance created against deferred tax assets on long-term gains on investments for the period ended June 30, 2014.

The Company records provisions for income taxes based on enacted tax laws and rates in the various tax jurisdictions in which it operates. In determining the tax provisions, the Company provides for tax uncertainties in income taxes when it is more likely than not, based on the technical merits, that a tax position would not be sustained upon examination. Such uncertainties, which are recorded in income taxes payable, are based on management’s estimates and accordingly, are subject to revision based on additional information. The provision no longer required for any particular tax year is credited to the current period’s income tax expenses. Conversely, in the event of a future tax examination, any additional tax expense not previously provided for will be recognized in the period in which the actual liability is concluded or management determines that the Company will not prevail on certain tax positions taken in filed returns, based on the “more likely than not” concept.

Syntel, Inc. and its subsidiaries file income tax returns in various tax jurisdictions. The Company is no longer subject to U.S. Federal tax examinations by tax authorities for years before 2010 and for State tax examinations for years before 2009. On May 5, 2014, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) commenced an examination of the 2012 US Federal Income Tax Return filed by Syntel Inc. and subsidiaries.

Syntel India, the Company’s India subsidiary, has disputed tax matters for the financial years 1996-97 to 2009-10 pending at various levels of the Indian tax authorities. Financial year 2010-11 and onwards are open for regular tax scrutiny by the Indian tax authorities. However, the tax authorities in India are authorized to reopen the already concluded tax assessments and may re-open the case of Syntel India for financial years 2007-08 and onwards. The Indian tax authority served a notice for re-opening the assessment of financial year 2008-09 for Syntel Global Private Limited (“SGPL”) on April 12, 2014. SGPL is in a position to defend the tax position for the aforesaid year and therefore, no additional provision has been made in the Company’s books.

The Company recognizes accrued interest and penalties related to unrecognized tax benefits as part of income tax expense. During the three months ended September 30, 2014, the Company has accrued interest of approximately $0.05 million. The Company has accrued approximately $1.31 million and $1.40 million for interest and penalties as of September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, respectively.

The liability for unrecognized tax benefits was $38.40 million and $30.23 million as of September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, respectively. The Company has paid income taxes of $34.52 million and $26.37 million against the liabilities for unrecognized tax benefits of $38.20 million and $30.23 million, as of September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, respectively. The Company has paid the taxes in order to reduce the possible interest and penalties related to these unrecognized tax benefits.

The Company’s net amount of unrecognized tax benefits for the tax disputes of $1.60 million and potential tax disputes of $3.22 million could change in the next twelve months as the court cases and global tax audits progress. At this time, due to the uncertain nature of this process, it is not reasonably possible to estimate an overall range of possible change.

Syntel’s software development centers/units are located in Mumbai, Chennai, Pune and Gurgaon, India and registered in Special Economic Zones (SEZ), as Export Oriented Units (EOU) and as units located in Software Technologies Parks of India (STPI). Software development centers/units enjoy favorable tax provisions due to their registration in SEZ.

Certain units located in SEZ were eligible for 100% exemption from payment of corporate taxes for the first five years of operation, 50% exemption for the next two years and for a further 50% exemption for another three years, subject to fulfilment of certain criteria. New units in SEZ that were operational after April 1, 2005 are eligible for 100% exemption from payment of corporate taxes for the first five years of operation, 50% exemption for the next five years and a further 50% exemption for another five years, subject to fulfilment of certain criteria.

Six Syntel SEZ units located in Mumbai have already ceased to enjoy the above-mentioned tax exemption. One SEZ unit located at Mumbai completed the tax holiday period on March 31, 2012. Further, three more SEZ units located at Mumbai completed their first five years of 100% exemption from payment of corporate taxes effective April 1, 2008 and only 50% of the profits of the stated units were eligible for tax exemption, which expired on March 31, 2013. During the year ended December 31, 2008, Syntel started a Software Development unit in the Pune SEZ and during 2009 the Company started one more Software Development unit in the Pune SEZ. During the year ended December 31, 2010, the Company started a Software Development unit in the Syntel Chennai SEZ. During the three months ended September 30, 2011, the Company started a Software Development SEZ unit in Airoli, Navi Mumbai. Further, one SEZ unit located at Chennai completed its first five years of 100% exemption on March 31, 2012. During the quarter ended June 30, 2013, the Company started operation in a new SEZ unit in the Syntel Pune SEZ. During the quarter ended June 30, 2014, the Company started operation in a new SEZ unit in the Syntel Chennai SEZ.

Syntel KPO STPI units located in Mumbai and Pune were exempt from payment of corporate income taxes on the profits generated by the units until March 31, 2011. During the year ended December 31, 2008, Syntel started a KPO unit in the Pune SEZ. During the three months ended June 30, 2011, Syntel started a KPO SEZ unit in Airoli, Navi Mumbai. The Syntel KPO entity has commenced business in the new SEZ unit in the Syntel Pune SEZ.

Syntel’s SEZ in Pune set up under the SEZ Act 2005, commenced operations in 2008. The SEZ for Chennai commenced operations in 2010. Income from operation of the SEZ, as a developer, is exempt from payment of corporate income taxes for ten out of 15 years from the date of SEZ notification.

Provision for Indian Income Tax is made only in respect of business profits generated from these software development units to the extent they are not covered by the above exemptions and also for income from treasury operations and other income.

Syntel India has not provided for disputed Indian income tax liabilities amounting to $1.61 million for the financial years 1996-97, 1997-98 and 2001-02, which is after recognizing certain tax liabilities aggregating $0.83 million.

Syntel India received orders for appeals filed with the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals (“CIT (A)”) against the demands raised by the Income Tax Officer in respect of certain matters relating to the financial years 1996-97, 1997-98, and 2000-01. Syntel India’s contention was partially upheld by the CIT (A). Syntel India further appealed with the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“ITAT”) for the amounts not allowed by the CIT (A). Syntel India received favorable orders from the ITAT. The Income Tax Department filed further appeals before the Bombay High Court. The Bombay High Court dismissed the Income Tax Department appeals and upheld the ITAT orders on December 15, 2009. The Income Tax Department filed a review petition before the Bombay High Court that was rejected due to filing defects. The Income Tax Department may rectify the defects and re-submit the review petition.

Syntel India has also not provided for disputed Indian income tax liabilities aggregating $4.86 million for the financial years 2002-03 to 2004-05, which is after recognizing tax on certain tax liabilities aggregating $0.75 million provided for uncertain income tax positions, against which Syntel India filed appeals with the CIT(A). Syntel India received the order for appeal filed with the CIT (A) relating to financial year 2002-03 and financial year 2003-04, wherein the contention of Syntel India was partially upheld. Syntel India has further appealed to the ITAT for the amounts not allowed by the CIT (A). The Income Tax Department has also filed a further appeal against the relief granted to Syntel India by the CIT (A). The appeals by Syntel India and the Income Tax Department have been scheduled for hearing before the ITAT in the near future. Syntel India has obtained opinions from independent legal counsels that support Syntel India’s stand in this matter.

For the financial year 2004-05, the appeal of Syntel India was fully allowed by the CIT (A). The Income Tax Department filed a further appeal with the ITAT against the amounts allowed by the CIT (A) except with regard to one item. The Income Tax department’s appeal was rejected by the ITAT. The Income Tax Department filed a further appeal before the Bombay High Court for the amounts allowed by the ITAT, except an item on which the CIT (A) granted relief to Syntel India and the Income Tax department did not appeal. Accordingly, Syntel India reversed a tax provision of $0.33 million during the year ended December 31, 2010 with regard to that one item. The Bombay High Court dismissed the Income Tax Department appeal. The Income Tax Department filed a Special Leave Petition with the Supreme Court of India on January 24, 2013, challenging the order passed by the Bombay High Court. The petition will come up for admission in the near future. For the financial year 2005-06, the Income Tax Department decided against Syntel India with respect to a particular tax position and Syntel India filed an appeal with the CIT (A). During the year ended December 31, 2010, Syntel India’s appeal for the financial year was fully allowed by the CIT (A). The Income Tax Department filed a further appeal with the ITAT against the amounts allowed by the CIT (A). The Income Tax Department appeal has been fixed for hearing before the ITAT in the near future. For the financial year 2006-07, the Income Tax Department decided against Syntel India with respect to a particular tax position and Syntel India filed an appeal with the CIT (A). During the three months ended September 30, 2011, the Company received an order for appeal filed with the CIT (A) that partially upheld Syntel India’s contentions. Syntel India filed a further appeal with the ITAT against the amounts not allowed by the CIT (A). The Income Tax Department filed a further appeal against the amounts allowed by the CIT (A). The Syntel India and Income Tax Department appeals are fixed for hearing before ITAT in the near future. For the financial year 2007-08 to 2009-10, the Indian Income Tax Department decided against Syntel India with respect to a particular tax position and Syntel India filed appeals with the CIT (A). The Company received orders for appeals filed with the CIT (A) that upheld Syntel India’s contentions. The Income Tax Department filed further appeals against the amounts allowed by the CIT (A). These appeals are scheduled for hearing before the ITAT in the near future.

For the financial year 2006-07, the Income Tax Department decided against the Syntel KPO entity with respect to a particular tax position and the Syntel KPO entity filed an appeal with the CIT (A). During the year ended December 31, 2011, the Syntel KPO entity received an order for appeal filed with CIT (A) wherein, the contention of Syntel KPO entity was upheld. The Income Tax department filed a further appeal against the amounts allowed by the CIT (A). The Income Tax Department appeal is fixed for hearing before ITAT on April 2, 2015. For the financial years 2007-08 to 2009-10, the Income Tax Department decided against the Syntel KPO entity with respect to a particular tax position and the Syntel KPO entity filed an appeal with the CIT (A). The Syntel KPO entity’s appeals for these financial years were not allowed by the CIT (A). The Syntel KPO entity has filed further appeals with the ITAT against the amounts not allowed by the CIT (A). The Syntel appeal is fixed for hearing before ITAT in the near future.

For the financial year 2007-08, the Income Tax Department also decided against Syntel International Private Limited (“SIPL”) with respect to a particular tax position and SIPL filed an appeal with the CIT (A). During the three months ended September 30, 2012, SIPL received an order for appeal filed with CIT (A) wherein the contention of SIPL was upheld. Also, High Court orders are in favor of the tax position taken by SIPL. Based on the CIT (A) and the recent High Court orders, SIPL reviewed an Uncertain Tax Position (UTP) of $0.24 million and reversed the aforesaid tax provision in September 2012. The Income Tax Department filed a further appeal to the ITAT against the amounts allowed by the CIT (A).

All the above tax exposures involve complex issues and may need an extended period to resolve the issues with the Indian income tax authorities. Management, after consultation with legal counsel, believes that the resolution of the above matters will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position.

Branch Profit Tax

Syntel India is subject to a 15% USA Branch Profit Tax (BPT) related to its effectively connected income in the USA, to the extent its U.S. taxable adjusted net income during the taxable year is not invested in the USA. The Company expects that U.S. profits earned on or after January 1, 2008 will be permanently invested in the U.S. Accordingly, effective January 1, 2008, a provision for BPT is not required. The accumulated deferred tax liability of $1.73 million as of December 31, 2007 will continue to be carried forward. Estimated additional BPT which would be due, if US profits were not to be permanently invested, were approximately $6.88 million as of September 30, 2014.

Undistributed Earnings of Foreign Subsidiaries

The Company intends to use the remaining accumulated and future earnings of foreign subsidiaries to expand operations outside the United States and accordingly, undistributed earnings of foreign subsidiaries are considered to be indefinitely reinvested outside the United States and no provision for U.S. Federal and State income tax or applicable dividend distribution tax has been provided thereon. If the Company determines to repatriate all undistributed repatriable earnings of foreign subsidiaries as of September 30, 2014, the Company would have accrued taxes of approximately $250.9 million.

Service Tax Audit

During the three months ended September 30, 2010, a service tax audit was conducted for the Adyar facility in Chennai by the office of the Accountant General (Commercial Receipt Audit). The scope of the audit was to review transactions covered under the Central Excise and Customs Act. The Development Commissioner (DC) issued a letter stating the audit objections raised by the officer of the audit team. Most of the observations are pertaining to the service tax and are for an amount of $3.85 million. Syntel India filed a reply to said notice and provided further information.

Further to Syntel India’s reply and information filed earlier, Syntel India received a letter dated July 13, 2011 from the DC, indicating that the audit objections amounting to $3.0 million, out of the total amount of $3.85 million, have been closed. Syntel is pursuing closure of the balance of the audit objections of approximately $0.85 million but has not yet received any communication back from the DC office.

Syntel India obtained the views of a tax consultant in this matter and the consultant advised that the matter is time barred. Even if not time barred, the consultant also provided advice that Syntel India will be in a position to defend the objections raised and therefore no provision has been made in the Company’s books.

Syntel India regularly files quarterly refund applications and claims refunds of taxes on input services which remain unutilized against a nil service tax on export of services. During the quarter ended June 30, 2014, Syntel India received orders for a service tax refund for the period October – December 2011. The Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax granted a refund of $0.32 million and rejected refunds of $0.60 million. Syntel India filed appeals before the Commissioner of Appeal responding to the aforesaid rejections. The rejection orders stated that the input services did not meet the conditions qualifying them for a refund of service taxes. Syntel India obtained the views of a tax consultant in this matter and the consultant advised that Syntel India is in a strong position to defend the rejections and therefore, no provision has been made in the books.

The Syntel KPO entity regularly files quarterly refund applications and claims refunds of taxes on input services which remain unutilized against a nil service tax on export of services. During the three months ended September 30, 2012, the Syntel KPO entity received orders for the rejection of a service tax refund for the period April–September 2011 of $0.46 million. Per the rejection order, there is no nexus of input services with the export of services justifying the claim of refund of service tax. The Syntel KPO entity filed appeals before the Commissioner of Appeal against the aforesaid order. The Syntel KPO entity received service tax refunds for the periods October–December 2011 and January–March 2012 of $0.15 million and $0.13 million, respectively. During the quarter ended December 31, 2013, the KPO entity received orders for rejection of Service tax refunds for the period April–December 2012 of $0.73 million. As per the rejection order, there is no nexus of input services with the export of services and the entity is not eligible for refund of the service tax. The Syntel KPO entity filed appeals before the Commissioner of Appeal against the aforesaid orders. During the quarter ended June 30, 2014, the Commissioner of Appeal allowed appeals filed by the Syntel KPO entity. The Service tax department has filed an appeal against the said order before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) and also an application for stay of refund. During the quarter ended June 30, 2014, the Syntel KPO entity received an order for a service tax refund for the period January–March 2013 of $0.20 million, after rejection of $0.05 million. The Syntel KPO entity filed appeals before the Commissioner of Appeal against the aforesaid rejection.

The Company obtained a tax consultant’s advice on the aforesaid orders. The consultant is of the view that the aforesaid orders are contrary to the wording of the service tax notifications and provisions. The Company, therefore, believes that its claims of service tax refunds should be upheld at the appellate stage and the refunds should be accordingly granted. Based on the consultant’s tax advice, the Company is in a strong position to defend the rejection of the refunds. Accordingly, no provision has been made in the Company’s books.

SIPL regularly files service tax returns and filed a refund application claiming a tax refund of unutilized input service tax on account of export of services. The Company received a show cause notice on October 23, 2012 for a service tax demand of approximately $2.04 million. The Company filed submissions with the service tax department to oppose the aforementioned show cause notice. However, the service tax department passed an order dated February 11, 2013 confirming said demand. The total demand, including penalty amounts, was raised to $3.95 million. In addition to this amount, annual interest at 18%, calculated on a daily basis on the outstanding demand, is payable. SIPL filed an appeal against the said order before the CESTAT and also an application for stay of demand. The CESTAT allowed SIPL’s appeal, set aside the demand and directed the Commissioner to make a fresh examination. However, the service tax department filed an appeal before the Bombay High Court against the aforesaid CESTAT order. In view of the above, SIPL defended the demand raised by the Commissioner and is in a strong position to defend the same before the Bombay High Court. The Company’s tax consultant is of the view that the aforementioned demand is contrary to the wording of the service tax notifications and provisions. Accordingly, no provision has been made in the Company’s books.

The Finance (No. 2) Act 2014

The Indian Finance ( No.2) Bill 2014 received the assent of India’s President on 6^th August,2014 and has been enacted as the Finance (No. 2) Act 2014. There were no changes in the corporate income tax, surcharge and cess and Minimum Alternative Tax (MAT) rates. In accordance with the Act, the dividend distribution tax is payable on the gross distribution amount in contrast with the earlier provision of the dividend distribution tax payable only on the net distribution amount to shareholders. Accordingly, the dividend distribution tax rate would be 20% on the net distribution amount to shareholders instead of earlier rate of 16.995%. Further, effective from July 11, 2014, in order to calculate the gain on debt based mutual funds, the holding period would be 36 months as opposed to the earlier holding period of 12 months for the debt based mutual funds, to be considered as long-term assets eligible for a lower tax rate of 22.66% instead of the normal corporate rate of 33.99%. Further, expenditures with respect to Corporate Social Responsibility would no longer be tax deductible expenditures.

Local Taxes

As of September 30, 2014 the Company recorded a local tax liability of approximately $4.0 million (exclusive of interest and/or penalties) relating to employer withholding taxes and employer payroll expense tax.

As of December 31, 2013, the Company recorded a local tax liability of approximately $4.5 million, equal to $2.9 million net of tax, relating to local taxes including employer withholding taxes, employer payroll expense taxes, business license registrations, and corporate income taxes.

Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT)

Minimum Alternate Tax (“MAT”) is payable on Book Income, including the income for which deduction is claimed under section 10A and section 10AA of the Indian Income Tax Act. The excess tax paid under MAT provisions, over and above the normal tax liability is “MAT Credit”. MAT Credit can be carried forward and set-off against future tax liabilities computed under normal tax provisions in excess of tax payable under MAT. The MAT Credit can be carried forward for set-off up to a period of 10 years from the end of the financial year in which MAT Credit arises. Accordingly, the Company’s Indian subsidiaries have calculated the tax liability for current domestic taxes after considering MAT tax liability. Management estimates that the Company’s Indian subsidiaries would utilize the MAT credit within the prescribed limit of 10 years. During the three months ended September 30, 2014, the Company estimated that the Company may not be able to utilize part of the MAT credit for one of the Indian subsidiaries. Accordingly, a valuation allowance of $0.85 million was recorded against the accumulated MAT credit recognized as deferred tax assets. The MAT credit as of September 30, 2014 of $24.43 million (net of valuation allowance of $0.85) shall be utilized before March 31 of the following financial years and shall expire as follows:


Year of Expiry Of MAT Credit	Amount in USD (in millions)
2017-18		0.21
2018-19		0.29
2019-20		1.05
2020-21		4.02
2021-22		0.86
2022-23		6.44
2023-24		7.27
2024-25		5.14
Total		25.28
Less: valuation allowance		(0.85	)

Total (net of valuation allowance)		24.43