AIT-2012-31-AAR
M/s Arteco Coolants India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, Maharashtra

super concentrates named CSC-GEN, CSC-QFB and CIP-FG shall be classified as products of the chemical industry under heading 3824 90 90 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and be assessed accordingly.

the amounts received/receivable by the applicant from M/s Jhajjar Power Ltd. for off-shore supply of equipments in terms of the contract dated 1.6.2009 is not liable to tax in India under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961

i. Whether the payments made by the Applicant to Shell International Petroleum Company Limited, (“SIPCL") for availing General Business Support Services (“General BSS”) under the terms of the Cost Contribution Agreement (“CCA”), would constitute “income” in the hands of SIPCL within the meaning of the term in Section 2(24) of the Act?

the income received/receivable by the Applicant for offshore supplies from Petronet LNG Ltd. in terms of Article 13.1 of the contract for Engineering, Procurement, Construction and Commissioning for Kochi regas Facilities (Contract) is not liable to be taxed in India

the payments received by the applicant from the distributor for sale of the software product is in the nature of royalty within the meaning of Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act.

The Applicant is of the view that the services rendered by the French Company are merely supportive and coordinated in nature and do not impart / enrich any technical knowledge to the Applicant. It is a service contract for availing certain common services from the French Company.

1. Whether, can the consideration, including mobilization and demobilization revenues, for services provided by the Applicant to IOCL and to L&T be construed to be in the nature of ‘Fees for Technical Services’ under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act?

the date of filing of the return is the relevant date to consider the applicability of the proviso to section 245R(2) of the Act, and that the filing of the return of income generates questions including the ones raised before this Authority, the jurisdiction to give a ruling in the present application has to be held to be barred

the date of filing of the return is the relevant date to consider the applicability of the proviso to section 245R(2) of the Act, and that the filing of the return of income generates questions including the ones raised before this Authority, the jurisdiction to give a ruling in the present application has to be held to be barred

the date of filing of the return is the relevant date to consider the applicability of the proviso to section 245R(2) of the Act, and that the filing of the return of income generates questions including the ones raised before this Authority, the jurisdiction to give a ruling in the present application has to be held to be barred

the date of filing of the return is the relevant date to consider the applicability of the proviso to section 245R(2) of the Act, and that the filing of the return of income generates questions including the ones raised before this Authority, the jurisdiction to give a ruling in the present application has to be held to be barred. We are, therefore, constrained to reject the application as being barred by clause (i) of the proviso to section 245R(2) of the Act.

No doubt the agents rendered services abroad and have solicited orders, but the right to receive the commission arises in India when the order is executed by the applicant in India. The fact that the agents have rendered services abroad in the form of soliciting the orders and the commission is to be remitted to them abroad are wholly irrelevant for the purpose of determining the situs of their income.

Whether payment of interest to AB Svensk ExportKredit (‘SEK’)[ through the Facility Agent i.e. NORDEA Bank AB(‘PUBL’) in respect of loan drawn down is exempt in India as per Article 11(3) of the DTAA between India and Sweden?

1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the payments received by Acclerys KK from sale of software products to end users / customers through an independent reseller in India will be taxable as business profits under Article 7 of the India-Japan DTAA?

Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, would the transfer of shares of UVW India by the applicant to its wholly owned subsidiary UVW India, in the course of the proposed buy-back of shares, be exempt from tax in India in the hands of the applicant, in view of the provisions of section 47(iv)?

Whether the amount paid or payable by the applicant to the overseas entities under the terms of Secondment Agreement is in the nature of income accrued to the overseas entities? - (b) If the answer to question no.1 above is in the affirmative, whether the tax is liable to be deducted at source by the applicant under the provision of Section 195 of the Income-tax Act, 1961?

1) Whether the payments received / receivable by the applicant in connection with transactions undertaken / proposed to be undertaken in relation to the following services are chargeable to tax in India as “fees for technical services” “FTS” under Section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act?

(i) Whether in terms of the Contract dated 10.2.2009 between ONGC Petro Additions Limited (hereinafter referred to as “OPAL) and Consortium of Linde AG, Germany, and Samsung Engineering Company Ltd., Korea (hereinafter referred to as “SEC”) the applicant and SEC are taxable in the status of AOP?

The products “Yum Creamy” and “Yum Chusky” shall be classifiable under headings 04039090 and 22029030 respectively of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985; and - The product “Yum Chusky” will be eligible for exemption under the Notification No. 01/2011 – CE dated 01/03/2011, subject to the applicant fulfilling the conditions prescribed in the said Notification

1. Is the amount received for the release and relinquishment of tenancy rights a real estate transaction liable to be taxed under the head capital gain and further, is it to be taxed in India or in the Netherlands?

Service Tax: the questions sought to be raised before us are pending before the CESTAT, though at the instance of the holding company of the applicants. If we go by the argument of the applicants before us, our ruling to be given, will only bind the applicants and the authorities under the Act would be bound to implement the ruling only in the case of the applicants. That would mean that in the appeal filed by the holding company of the applicants involving the identical questions, the CESTAT is free to render a ruling ignoring what is being ruled by this Authority. That according to us, could lead to incompatible decisions concerning the same question, being rendered by two different Authorities on an identical transaction. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we think that such a situation should be avoided. This will be in furtherance of the spirit of enacting the bar to the jurisdiction of this Authority to entertain an application for advance ruling, when the identical question is pending before an authority under the Act, the Tribunal or Court.

(1) Whether on the stated facts and in law, the capital gains arising to ‘A’ (M), a tax resident of Mauritius, pursuant to the tendering of shares of ‘A’ (the applicant) under the buy-back scheme of the applicant would be Exempt from taxation in India, having regard to the provisions of paragraph 4 of Article 13 of the India-Mauritius Tax Treaty? - (2) If the answer to question No.1 is affirmative then whether, on the stated facts and n law the applicant is required to withhold tax on the remittance of the buy-back proceeds to ‘A’(M)?

Whether on the facts stated in the application and in law, gains arising to the applicant, being a resident of Mauritius on sale of equity shares and Compulsory Convertible Debentures (CCDs) held by the applicant in S Ltd., an Indian company, are exempt from capital gains tax in India under Article 13.4 of DTAA between India and Mauritius.

(i) Whether in terms of the Contract dated 10.2.2009 (hereinafter referred to as “the contract) between X and Consortium of ABC Germany, and E, the applicant and E are taxable in the status of AOP?  - (ii) Whether in terms of the Contract, the amount receivable/received in respect of design and engineering, prepared solely for manufacture, procurement of equipment outside India and being inextricably linked to such equipment to be supplied, liable to tax in India, under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 or under the DTAA between India and Germany.

1) Whether, pursuant to the “Services Agreement” entered into by the Applicant with Mersen, France, the payment made by the Applicant to Mersen, France, towards advisory services is “fees for technical services" as per Article 13 (4) of the India-French DTAA read with the protocol to the said DTAA?

1) whether the amounts received/receivable by the applicant i.e. Roxar Maximum Reservoir Performance WLL, Bahrain (‘Roxar’) from ONGC under Contract No. MR/MM/WS/SER/MG/050/P66NC08003/9010012082 for offshore supply of 36 manometer gauges (hereinafter referred as ONGC Contract) is chargeable to tax in India under the provisions of Income-tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’)?

the applicant is in the business of gathering, collating and making available or imparting information concerning industrial and commercial knowledge, experience and skill and consequently the payment received from the subscriber would be royalty in terms of clause (iv) of Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. If so, the subscription received is royalty liable to be taxed as such under the Act.

1. Whether pursuant to the Cost Allocation Agreement (CAA) the payments to be made by ‘A’ India Private Limited (“A India”) to the Applicant, representing the ‘A’ India’s share of the costs incurred towards Research and Development (“R&D”) activities, constitutes “Income” in the hands of Applicant within the meaning of the term of Section 2(24) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) liable to tax under the Act?