AIT-2010-28-AAR
STAR Television Entertainment Ltd. Vs. DIT (International Taxation) Mumbai

Whether the amalgamation, as defined under Section 2 (1B) of the I.T. Act, 1961, of STEL, SAML and SAR with Star India Private Limited, an Indian company, will result in any liability under the I.T. Act in the hands of the applicants and their share holders?”
the benefit of Section 47(vi) & (vii) of the Income Tax Act cannot be denied to the applicants on the ground that the transfer of shares pursuant to amalgamation is a legally impermissible step adopted by the applicants only with a view to avoid or evade the income tax without there being any commercial or business purpose.

AIT-2010-36-AAR
M/s. Dassault Systems K.K. Vs. DIT, New Delhi

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the payment received by Dassault Systems K.K. (“the applicant”) from sale of software products to independent third party resellers will be taxable as business profits under Article 7 of the India-Japan Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement and will not constitute ‘royalties and fee for technical services’ as defined in Article 12 of India-Japan DTAA

AIT-2010-38-AAR
GMP International GmbH Vs. DIT, Chennai

1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the amounts received by the applicant outside India from the Public Works Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, are in consideration for the sale of designs and drawing, being a capital asset transferred outside India, and whether such receipts would be liable to tax in India under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961?
2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the amounts received by the applicant from the Public Works Department, Government of Tamil Nadu is taxable as “Fees for Technical Services” under section (1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with Article 12 – fees for technical services under the Double Tax Avoidance Agreement entered into between India and Germany?

AIT-2010-41-AAR
Yongnam Engineering & Construction (Pte) Ltd. Vs DIT, New Delhi

whether the amount received/receivable by the applicant from Larsen & Toubro Limited for offshore supply and delivery of overseas fabricated items are liable to tax in India under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961and India-Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement

Whether CFTI can be considered as an institute imparting training which is specifically excluded from the definition of ‘Commercial coaching and training centre’ as defined under Section 65(27) of the Finance Act, as an establishment which issues a certificate recognized by law for the time being in force?
Whether CAE Flight Training (India) Private Limited can be considered ‘Vocational Training Institute’ so as to be exempted from tax under the category of ‘Commercial Training & Coaching Service’ as provided under Notification No. 24/2004 dated 10.9.2004, in light of the fact that it provides aircraft specific training to CPL holders so as to enable them to qualify for flying specified aircrafts and to subsequently enable them to obtain employment in various airlines?”

the income earned by the applicant by way of salary from his employment in USA in the previous year 2008-09 (assessment year 2009-10) is not liable to be taxed under section 5(1)(c) or any other provision of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the basis that the applicant’s status was that of a ‘resident’ during that year

whether the amount receivable by Laird USA as per the Assignment Agreement is taxable in India having regard to the provisions of the Act and the DTA A between India and USA ?
If the  amount receivable by Laird USA is not taxable in India, then, whether the Applicant is required to withhold tax under section 195 of the Act while making remittance to Laird USA?

AIH proposes to contribute shares of AFIIL (the Indian Company) along with non-European investments to ACHL. AIH - the applicant will not receive any consideration for the contribution so made.
the applicant is not liable to tax in India in relation to the proposed contribution of shares of AFIIL? - the transfer pricing provisions in Chapter X are not attracted.

1. Whether KSPG Netherlands Holding B.V would be liable to tax in India on the dividends received by it from its wholly owned subsidiary, Pierburg India Private Limited as per the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961?
2. Whether the applicant would be liable to tax in India on the capital gains that may accrue from the transfer of shares in PG India to another non-resident as per the provisions of the Convention between the Government of Republic of India and the Kingdom of the Netherlands for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income and on capital ?

(a) Whether the applicant in the stated facts and circumstances, would have a Permanent Establishment (“PE”) in India under Article 5(1) or 5(8) of the India-Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“India-Singapore DTAA” or “Treaty”) in relation to the activity of delivering goods through a customs bonded warehouse owned and operated by an independent service provider in India.
(b) In case the answer to Question (a) is in the affirmative, but the service provider is remunerated on an arm’s length basis, would any further income be attributable to the PE of the Applicant in India in terms of Article 7 of the India-Singapore DTAA?

whether the amounts received/receivable by Joint Stock Company Foreign Economic Association “Technopromexport” (‘Applicant’ or ‘JSC Technopromexport’) from National Thermal Power Corporation Limited (‘NTPC’) under Contract No. CS-9558-102-2-FC-COA-4520 dated 25 March 2005 (‘Offshore supply contract no. 4520’), for Offshore supply of all plant and equipment including mandatory spares are liable to tax in India under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act) and the Agreement for Avoidance of Double Taxation between India and Russia (‘India-Russia tax treaty’)?

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the IC² Institute of University of Texas, Austin, USA executing the agreement between FICCI and UT (IC²) is covered by the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and USA, therefore, the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 will not be applicable?
ii. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case UT (IC²⁾ is not liable to pay income-tax in India out of the payments received by it from FICCI in instalments?

Whether the payments received by the applicant for the proposed recruitment services and referral services from the Indian clients is liable to tax withholding under section 195 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and UK?
the receipts in the nature of referral fee from the Indian based recruitment company cannot be subjected to tax as business profits in view of the provisions of the Treaty

1. Whether on the stated facts and in law the income derived by Master and Commander AS (‘M&C) ought to be computed in accordance with the computational mechanism under section 44BB of the Act?
2. If the answer to question no.1 is in affirmative, what would be the rate at which tax is to be withheld from payments made by the applicant to M&C?

Whether AramCo Overseas Company BV (‘applicant’) will be taxable in India, in respect of support services rendered by its Indian office for purchases made by the applicant and its group company, in light of the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961?
if the purchasers are non-residents other than the applicant, the applicant is liable to pay tax in India on the amount received by it for the support services rendered through the branch office in India

whether the conversion of partnership firm as a private limited company under Part-IX of the Companies Act, 1956 in September, 2005 will be regarded as transfer within the meaning of section 2(47) and other relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961? If so, will it give rise to capital gains liable to income-tax consequent upon the transaction entered into by the applicant of buying the shares of the said company in August, 2008 and making it its wholly owned subsidiary by reason of the provision in clause (d) of proviso to section 47(xiii) of the Act?
no capital gains accrued or arose at the time of conversion of partnership firm into a private limited company under Part IX of the Companies Act and therefore, notwithstanding the non-compliance with clause (d) of proviso to Section 47(xiii) of the Income Tax Act, by reason of premature transfer of shares, the said company is not liable to pay capital gains tax

(1) Whether pursuant to the Cost Contribution Agreement proposed to be entered by the Applicant with ABB Research Limited, Zurich, (“ABB Zurich”), the payments to be made to ABB Zurich, representing the Applicant’s share of the costs incurred towards basic Research and Development (“R&D”) activities, constitutes “income” in the hands of ABB Zurich within the meaning of the term in Section 2(24) of the Income-tax Act, 1961)?
(2) Based on the answer to Question (1) above, and in view of the facts as stated in Attachment III, and also in light of the declaration provided by ABB Zurich that it does not have a permanent establishment in India in terms of Article 5 of the ‘Agreement between the Government of the Republic of India and the Government of the Swiss Confederation for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to taxes on income (‘India-Swiss Tax Treaty’), whether the proposed payments by the Applicant to ABB Zurich suffer withholding tax under section 195 of the Act and if so, at what rate?

Whether the compensation payable to Hellmuth, Obata + Kassabaum L.P., USA under clause VA of the Agreement dated October 15, 2008 can be disintegrated in three parts; viz., (a) for development and sale of designs (b) consultancy for construction documents, and, (c) for ‘Construction administration’ and ‘additional services’?

Whether payment received by M/s Raytheon Company under the transaction mentioned in Annexure I is liable to tax in India in the hands of the recipient non-resident US company?
(ii) Whether any tax is required to be deducted at source by the applicant on payments to be made to the recipient non-resident US company? If yes, then what is the applicable rate of withholding tax?

Whether the amount payable by the applicant in accordance with the agreement entered into with Ernst & Young (EMEIA) Services Limited is chargeable to tax in India under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) and Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and UK?

1. Whether the profits/losses from futures and options contracts (derivative transactions) carried out on the Indian Stock exchanges are in the nature of “Business income” in the hands of the applicant under the provisions of the Act read with the Agreement for Avoidance of Double Taxation between India and Canada (Treaty)?
2. Whether profits/losses from transactions relating to purchase and sale of equity shares or other tradable securities on the Indian stock exchanges are in the nature of “Business Income” in the hands of the applicant under the provisions of the Act read with the Treaty?

(i) Whether on the stated facts and in law, the Applicant, a tax resident of Mauritius, is exempt from payment of capital gains tax in India under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (or “DTAA”) between India and Mauritius (“India-Mauritius DTAA”) in respect of the transfer of 30,625,692 shares in IL & FS Investmart Ltd. an Indian Company to HSBC Violet Investments (Mauritius) Limited?
(ii) If the answer to question (i) is in negative, whether on stated facts and in law, the Applicant will be liable to pay tax on long term capital gains at 10% under the proviso to Section 112(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“IT Act”)?

whether the consortium of Mitsubishi Corporation, Japan (MC), Hyundai Rotem Company, Korea (Rotem), Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, Japan (MELCO) and BEML Limited, India (‘BEML’) [referred to as ‘MRMB Consortium’], for the purpose of bidding and executing the contract RS3 of Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (‘DMRC’), could be assessed as independent companies under section 2(31)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) in India or as an Association of Persons (‘AOP’) under section 2(31)(v) of the Act?