M/s. Praxair Pacific Limited Vs. DIT (International Taxation), Bangalore
1) Whether the investment held by Praxair Pacific Limited, in equity shares of Jindal Praxair Oxygen Company Private Limited would be considered as “capital asset” under section 2(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961? - 2) would the transfer of equity shares of JPOCPL from the Applicant to its wholly owned subsidiary Praxair India Private Limited, be liable to tax in India in view of the exemption from capital gains and subject to conditions provided under section 47(iv) of the Act?
Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT (LTU), New Delhi
interest income on Bonds issued by Madhya Pradesh Government in lieu of outstanding loan and interest thereon from Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board is income from Long Term Finance for the purpose of Deduction u/s 36(1)(viii). - pre-payment premium to repay the long term loan before its maturity received by the applicant is income from long term finance for the purpose of deduction under section 36(1)(viii)
Seabird Exploration FZ, LLC,UAE Vs. DIT (tax (International Taxation), New Delhi
1. Whether sum paid by the applicant to the vessel providing companies (‘VPC’) under global usage bare boat charter agreements (‘BBC agreements’) could be said to accrue or arise or deemed to accrue or arise in India under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) and therefore subject to withholding tax in India? - 2. If the answer to question 1 is in affirmative, whether sum paid by the applicant to the VPCs under global usage BBC agreements are taxable in India under the provisions of section 44BB of the Act?
Timken Company Vs. DIT (International Taxation) Kolkata.
Section 115JB is not designed to be applicable to the case of the applicant, a foreign company, who has no presence or PE in India. - as the applicant does not have any physical presence in India in the form of an office or branch or a PE, the provisions of section 115JB of the Act are not applicable on the sale of shares of a listed company Timken India Limited, by the applicant, which has suffered securities transaction tax and accordingly, tax exempt under section 10(38) of the Act.
H-D Motor Company India Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi
the import of motorcycle in the form of components, parts and sub-assemblies, proposed to be imported by the applicant, would constitute import of motorcycles in Completely Knocked Down form and as such would be eligible for concessional rate of basic customs duty at the rate of 10% provided under Entry 345 of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus.
Bharati AXA General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. DIT, (International Taxation) Bangalore
1. Whether the payments made by the applicant to AXA ARC for various services under the terms of the Service Agreement is in the nature of “fees for technical services” within the meaning of the term in Article 12 of the ‘Convention between the Government of Republic of India and the Government of Republic of Singapore for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income’ (“the India-Singapore Tax Treaty)? - 2. Whether the payments made by the applicant to AXA ARC for providing access to applications and to the server hardware system hosted in Singapore and related support under the terms of the Service Agreement is in the nature of “royalty” within the meaning of the term in Explanation 2 to clause (vi) of Section 9(1) of the Act?
Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand Vs. DIT (International Taxation-I), New Delhi
the consideration received/receivable by Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand (applicant) from the Conformity Assessment Bodies (CAB’s) can not be classified as ‘fees for technical services’ as defined under section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Article 12 of the DTAA between India and Australia can not impose a liability for taxation on the applicant - The income derived does not fall within the ‘royalty’ clause (which includes ‘fees for technical services’) under Article 12 of the Treaty.
Geo Quest Systems B.V Vs. DIT, (International Taxation-I), New Delhi
the amount payable under Software licence terms and conditions contract to the applicant does not amount to ‘royalty’ within the meaning of Article 12.4 of DTAA between India and Netherlands, nor can it be treated as ‘fees for technical services’