Services  |  Subscribe  |  Contact Us  |   Feedback   |  E-mail  |  News |  Home
JUDGMENTS
CENTRAL EXCISE
CUSTOMS
SERVICE TAX
INCOME TAX
VAT
FINANCE ACTS
FINANCE BILLS
EOU STPI
SEZ
DGFT
RBI
NTT
RESOURCES


    
Email | Print

Important Links SC HC CESTAT ITAT AAR

ADVANCE RULINGS 2011

AIT-2011-109-AAR
Toshiba Plant Systems and Services Corporation Vs. DIT (International Taxation), Bangalore

the consideration received by the Applicant for the steam turbine, turbo generator erection of auxiliaries, other equipments including associated electrical, instrumentation and pre-commissioning work for the five units of 800 MW each of Ultra Mega Power Project at Mundra, Gujarat is eligible for presumptive rate of taxation under section 44BBB of the Act in India and accordingly, a sum equal to ten percent of the contract amount as and when received by the Applicant shall be deemed to be the profits and gains chargeable under the head Profit and gains of business of profession" of the Applicant in India.

AIT-2011-110-AAR
Transworld Garnet Company Limited Vs. DIT (International Taxation), Chennai

The denial of the benefit of the second proviso to section 48 of the Act to the applicant, a non-resident assessee while computing capital gains arising from the sale of shares of TGI would not amount to discriminatory treatment in terms of article 24 of the DTAA with Canada.

AIT-2011-128-AAR
Global Geophysical Services Limited Vs. (International Taxation), New Delhi

the income derived by Global Geophysical Services Limited under the contracts with ONGC and Cairn Energy India Pty Limited is to be computed by applying the provisions of section 44BB of the Income-tax Act 1961.

AIT-2011-146-AAR
D.B. Zwirn Mauritius Trading No 2 Limited Vs. DIT (International Taxation), New Delhi.

the applicant is not liable to pay capital gains tax in India in respect of the transfer of shares held in Quippo Telecom Infrastructure Limited (Indian Company) to Geraldton Finance Limited, a Mauritius based company having regard to the provisions of India-Mauritius DTAA.

AIT-2011-147-AAR
VNU International B.V. Vs. DIT (International Taxation), Mumbai

whether any capital gain earned by VNU International on transfer of 50,765 shares of ORG-IMS to the purchasers would be liable to tax in India as per the provisions of the Act and the Tax Treaty between India and the Netherlands. - 2.if the capital gain is not taxable in India, whether the applicant is required to file any return of income under section 139 of the Act?

AIT-2011-148-AAR
D.B. Zwirn Mauritius Trading No 3 Limited Vs. DIT (International Taxation), New Delhi.

the applicant is not liable to pay capital gains tax in India in respect of the transfer of shares held in Quippo Telecom Infrastructure Limited (Indian Company) to Geraldton Finance Limited, a Mauritius based company having regard to the provisions of India-Mauritius DTAA.

AIT-2011-154-AAR
M/s Enercon (India) Limited Vs. CCE, Gujarat

the applicant is not eligible for the exemption in respect of the specially designed transformers proposed to be manufactured by it, as a part of wind operated electricity generator under Notification No. 6/2006-Central Excise.

AIT-2011-156-AAR
M/s Enercon (India) Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs(Import), Maharashtra

imported transformers are not covered by the entry at Serial No. 13 of List 5 read with the entry at Serial No. 84 of the Table to the Notification No. 6/2006-Central Excise and consequently will not be eligible for the benefit of exemption from the levy of additional duty.

AIT-2011-167-AAR
M/s Xerox India Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi

1. In those cases where the Applicant makes a categorical declaration on the outer packing of the said products Not Meant for Retail SaIes, - can the Applicant pay additional customs duty on a value determined under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 i.e. on the basis of the transaction value‟ of the goods, and ignoring the MRP on the packing of the product (which may be done to comply with internal business guidelines)?

AIT-2011-168-AAR
RITES Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (LTU), New Delhi

Service Tax: the proposed leasing of the locomotives coaches/wagons by the applicant for a short duration to a lessee on a rent, the term or rent bearing no correlation to either the life of the equipment or the cost of the equipment, would not be exigible to service-tax under the Finance Act, 1994 on the basis of the definition in Section 65(12) of the Act.

AIT-2011-188-AAR
GoodyearTire and Rubber Company Vs. ADIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

Whether the Applicant is liable to tax in India under the provisions of section 45 read with section 48 or under any other provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ) in relation to the proposed contribution of its shares in Goodyear India Limited (GIL) to Goodyear Orient Company (Private) Limited (G

AIT-2011-201-AAR
M/s MAS-GMR Aerospace Engineering Company Ltd.

Service Tax: Question No.1.Whether service tax is applicable on the services rendered by the applicant to the overseas entity for contract with:- - (a) Domestic airlines who operate domestic flights to India;- (b) Domestic airlines who operate international flights; and- (c) Foreign entities who operate international flights? -Answer: Yes -Question No.2.Whether service tax is applicable on the services rendered by the applicant directly to: -(a) Domestic airlines who operate domestic flights to India;-(b) Domestic airlines who operate international flights; and-(c) Foreign entities who operate international flights?

AIT-2011-202-AAR
M/s Oracle India Private Limited Vs. CC, Delhi

the applicant is not eligible to seek an Advance Ruling on the new line of business it proposes to start in the course of its existing import trade. - the applicant is not eligible to seek a ruling on its proposed business activity, the applications are not maintainable. These applications are, therefore, not admitted but are rejected.

AIT-2011-203-AAR
M/s AmSafe Services India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, Bangalore

Whether the applicant would be correct in classifying the goods sought to be imported under Tariff Classification 8803 (Parts of goods of heading 8801 or 8802) as the goods shall be used as parts of aircrafts? - 2. Whether the applicant would be correct in availing the benefit of exemption from basic Customs duty and additional Customs duty under Entry No. 10 of notification No. 39/96-Cus dated 23.7.96 if the goods are supplied to HAL who shall use (either as raw material, capital goods or consumables) the same for manufacturing or servicing of the aircraft to be supplied to Ministry of Defence?

AIT-2011-204-AAR
OHM Limited Vs. DIT (International Taxation), Delhi

Whether revenues earned or to be earned by the applicant under seismic data acquisition and processing contracts in India are taxable under section 44BB of the Income-tax Act (Act) at of effective tax rate of 4.223%?

AIT-2011-205-AAR
Bergen Oilfield Services AS Vs. (International Taxation), Delhi

Whether revenues earned or to be earned by the applicant under seismic data acquisition and processing contracts in India are taxable under section 44BB of the Income-tax Act (Act) at of effective tax rate of 4.223%?

AIT-2011-206-AAR
Lanka Hydraulic Institute Limited Vs. DIT(International Taxation), Kolkata

given that the Convention between the Government of the Republic of India and the Government of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income and on capital (Tax Treaty‟) does not contain a specific Article for the taxation of Fees for Technical Services (FTS) would the liability to tax, if any, of the consideration received by the Applicant from Water and Power Consultants Ltd. (WAPCOS‟) under the Contract be governed by Article 7 of the Tax Treaty, which deals with taxation of business profits?

AIT-2011-207-AAR
R.R. Donnelley India Outsource Private Limited Vs. CIT, Chennai

whether the amount received/receivable by RRD UK as per the Data Processing Services Agreement is taxable as fees for technical services having regard to the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the DTAA between India and UK (the DTAA)?

AIT-2011-215-AAR
ABC International Inc. Vs. DIT (International Taxation)
, New Delhi

1. Whether the income earned by the applicant by way of discounting of bills of exchange or promissory notes pertaining to its Indian group entities is liable to tax in India as per the provisions of Income-tax Act, 1961 or under the provisions of DTAA between India and United States of America - 2. In case the above income is held to be taxable in India considering the provisions of the Act or DTAA, what will be the amount taxable in India and whether such income will be taxed at the time of discounting of the bills of exchange or promissory notes or on their maturity or on rediscounting thereof?

AIT-2011-228-AAR
Verizon Data Services India Private Limited Vs. CIT, Chennai

1.whether the amounts (representing salary and benefits payable by GTE-OC to Expatriate employees) reimbursed by the Applicant to GTE-OC Overseas Corporation (GTE-OC) is income" accruing to GTE-OC and therefore, whether the same is liable to deduction of tax in accordance with the provisions of section 195 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 ? - 2. If the answer to Question No 1 is in the affirmative, then whether the same is taxable as Fees for Included Services (FIS) under the Act read with the India-USA DTAA?

AIT-2011-309-AAR
Bourbon Offshore Asia Pte. Ltd. Vs. DIT (International Taxation), Delhi

1. Whether on the stated facts and in law the income derived by BOA ought to be computed in accordance with the computation mechanism under section 44BB of the Act? - 2. If the answer to question 1 is in affirmative, what would be the rate at which tax is to be withheld from payments made by Transocean to BOA towards time charter of service vessel?

AIT-2011-326-AAR
Siem Offshore Inc. Vs. DIT (International Taxation), Dehradun

The applicant is a company incorporated in the Cayman Islands. - the applicant has sought a ruling as to whether it was not liable to be taxed only under section 44BB of the Act and whether ONGC was not liable to withhold tax only on that basis and on other related questions. While admitting the application for a Ruling in terms of section 245R(2), this authority accepted the following questions for Ruling:-

AIT-2011-327-AAR
WesternGeco International Limited Vs. DDIT (International Taxation), Dehradun

Even if part of the income falls under Royalties or Fees for technical Services, there is no scope to assess such receipts under these heads, once it is held that the income is from its oil exploration and production activities as envisaged under section 44BB. We are of the view that if the applicant desires to know the answers to the two issues, then it has to first exercise the option to get its income computed under section 44BB(3). In view thereof, we answer the Question No.2 by saying that the entire mobilization/demobilization revenues received by the applicant with respect to seismic data acquisition and/or processing would be taxable in India at an effective rate of 4.223%.

AIT-2011-328-AAR
Deepak Cables (India) Limited Vs. DIT
(International Taxation), Bangalore

Whether the amount paid/payable by the Applicant to LSCL under the transaction mentioned in Annexure III in respect of Offshore supply of Equipments is liable to tax in India in the hands of LSCL, i.e. the recipient non-resident Korean company?.

AIT-2011-329-AAR
Cairn U.K. Holdings Ltd. Vs. DIT (International Taxation), Delhi

The applicant, Cairn UK Holding Ltd. (CUHL), is a private limited company registered in Scotland. It acquired the equity shares of Cairns India Limited (CIL) in 3 tranches - On the scheme of the provisions and the level playing field sought to be achieved, the natural way of understanding the proviso is to confine its operations to assets not covered by the first proviso to Section 48 and the assets specified in the proviso to Section 112 itself.

AIT-2011-330-AAR
LS Cable Limited Vs. DIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

Nothing in law prevents the parties to enter into a contract which provides for sale of material for a specified consideration, although they were meant to be utilized in the fabrication and installation of a complete plant. Regarding the revenues plea that as the applicant has a PE in India, the income arising should be taxed in India, it stated that the existence of PE would be for the purpose of carrying out the contract for onshore supplies and services etc. but such a PE would have no role to play in offshore supplies. Even if a PE is involved in carrying on some incidental activities such as clearance from the port and transportation, it cannot be said that the PE is in connection with the offshore supplies. We accordingly hold that the applicant is not liable to tax in respect of offshore supplies as per the Act.

AIT-2011-347-AAR
Columbia Sportswear Company Vs. DIT
(International Taxation), Bangalore

(1) A portion of the income of the business of designing, manufacturing and sale of the products imported by the applicant from India accrues to the applicant in India. - (2) The applicant has a business connection in India being its liaison office located in India. - (3) The activities of the Liaison Office in India are not confined to the purchase of goods in India for the purpose of export. - (4) The income taxable in India will be only that part of the income that can be attributed to the operations carried out in India. This is a matter of computation. - (5) The Indian Liaison Office involves a Permanent Establishment‟ for the applicant under Article 5.1 of the DTAA.

AIT-2011-402-AAR
SEPCOIII Electric Power Construction Corporation Vs. DIT (International Taxation), Kolkatta

as on the date of filing of the present application before us relating to the rights and obligations arising out of the contract dated 10.5.2006 entered into by the applicant, in so far as it relates to the question posed in this application, was pending before the concerned assessing officer. We re-emphasize that merely because a questionnaire in general terms is served or a questionnaire raising specific issues is served as a further step towards completing the assessment, cannot lead to the position that the question sought to be raised before us is not pending before the assessing officer when the return of income is filed. We are, therefore, satisfied that the allowing of this application under section 245 R(2) of the Act for giving a ruling under section 245R(4) of the Act is barred by virtue of the proviso to section 245R (2) of the Act. The application is, therefore, rejected.

AIT-2011-415-AAR
Tiong Woon Project & Contracting Pte. Limited Vs. ADIT (International Taxation), Chennai

Applicant is of the view that as these are installation projects, these can be considered to have a Permanent Establishment only if each of these four installation projects continues for a period of more than 183 days individually in any previous year in terms of Article 5.3 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement with Singapore (DTAA). As the income from the execution of these projects is in the nature of business profits, it would be taxable in India as per Article 7.1 of the DTAA only if it has a Permanent Establishment in India.

AIT-2011-423-AAR
Millennium IT Software Ltd. Vs. DIT, (International Taxation), Mumbai.

1. Whether, MILLENNIUM IT (Software) Limited (The Applicant) is/will be non-taxable in India under the Income-tax Act, 1961, with respect to Implementation and license & maintenance fees (Fees) paid by ICEL to Applicant company under the said agreement? - 2. Whether the applicant is/will be non-taxable under the DTAA entered into between the Government of India and the Government of Sri Lanka?

AIT-2011-424-AAR
M/s Delta Power Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chennai

The applicant proposes to import battery cells of two volts each, store the battery cells in a customs bonded store room and effect supplies of battery banks comprising 24 battery cells inserted in battery cabinets along with base stand and connectors etc.

AIT-2011-439-AAR
Upaid Systems Limited Vs. DIT (International Taxation), Hyderabad

(i) Is the amount receivable by the applicant from M/s. Satyam Computer Services Ltd. (Satyam), in accordance with Paragraph 2 of the settlement agreement entered between the applicant and Satyam on July 18, 2009 at Dallas, USA, a capital receipt in the hands of the applicant? - (ii) If the answer to question (i) is in the affirmative, can the said amount be treated as income under any of the specified heads provided in the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act‟)?

AIT-2011-462-AAR
Ardex Investments Mauritius Ltd. Vs. Addl. DIT, Mumbai

the capital gains on the proposed sale of shares by the applicant to Ardex Beteligungs-GmbH is not chargeable to tax on capital gains in India in view of Article 13.4 of the India-Mauritius Tax Treaty.

AIT-2011-476-AAR
Groupe Industrial Marcel Dassault Vs. DIT (International Taxation)
, Hyderabad

In terms of the provisions of the double taxation avoidance treaty dated th September, 1994 as amended from time to time, entered between the Republic of India with the Government of French Republic ("Indo-French Tax Treaty") read with section 90 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Capital gains arising from the sale of shares of ShanH (French incorporated Entity) by the Applicant (French Incorporated Entity) to Sanofi (French Incorporated Entity) is liable to tax inIndia

AIT-2011-477-AAR
SEPCOIII Electric Power Construction Corporation Vs. ADIT
(International Taxation), Mumbai

In the order dated 25.8.2011 this authority had given its reasons to find that the application was hit by the bar contained in clause (i) of the proviso to section 245R(2) of the Act. The applicant submits that the reasoning leading to the invocation of the bar contained in section 245R(2) of the Act is incorrect and requires to be corrected.

AIT-2011-486-AAR
Poonawalla Aviation Private Limited Vs. CIT, Pune

1. Whether payment of interest to Dassault is taxable in view of provision of Article 12(3)(b) of the India-France Agreement for avoidance of double taxation (treaty")? - 2. Whether payment of interest to BNP (after the assignment of promissory notes by Dassault to BNP), is taxable in India in view of the provisions of Article 12(3)(b)?

AIT-2011-495-AAR
Perfetti Van Melle Holding B.V. Vs. Addl. DIT, New Delhi

1. whether the payment to be made by Perfetti Van Melle India Private Limited (Perfetti India) for the cost to be allocated by Perfetti Van Melle Holding BV (the Applicant) will not be taxable in India in the hands of the Applicant as per the provisions of the DTAA entered into between India and The Netherlands?

AIT-2011-507-AAR
Shell Technology India Private Limited Vs. JCIT (International Taxation), Bangalore

i. Whether the payments made by the applicant to SSSABV under the Agreement for Business Support Services is in the nature of fees for technical services within the meaning of the term in Article 12 of the Convention between the Republic of India and the Kingdom of Netherlands for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income and on capital‟ (the India-Netherlands Tax Treaty)?

AIT-2011-508-AAR
Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. CIT tax (Large Tax Payer Unit)
, Mumbai

Since the question whether the payment made under the transaction was chargeable to tax under the Act was pending before the authorities under the Act arising out of an assessment against ASE, before the applicant approached this Authority the allowing of this application under Section 245R(2) of the Act is barred. The bar is in entertaining an application where the question raised in the application is already pending before any income-tax authority. Since we have found that the question arising before us, the primary question, if not the only question, is whether the payment to be made by the applicant to ASE on the transaction(s) is chargeable under the Act is already pending in proceedings against the payee, ASE, entertainment of the present application is barred by clause (i) of the proviso to Section 245R(2) of the Act. We, therefore, reject the application.


HOME Judgment Central Excise Customs Service Tax Income Tax VAT Finance Act Finance Bills EOU STPI SEZ DGFT RBI NTT Resources

 

  Copyright 2006 allindiantaxes.com | All rights reserved
website designing India & CMS development: Softlogics & Developments