J & P Coats Limited Vs. CIT, New Delhi
1) Whether the cost recouped by the Applicant from MCPL for the connectivity provided by BT UK would in the nature of reimbursement of expenses and hence not subject to tax in India? - 2) In the event, the answer to Question 1 is in the negative, would be cost recouped by the Applicant from MCPL be regarded as-
Aircom International Limited Vs. DDIT, New Delhi
1. Whether based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the payments being made by Aircom International (India) Private Limited (“Aircom India”) to the Applicant under the Management Service Agreement (“MSA”) for the services specified thereunder would be characterized as ‘fees for technical services’ (“FTS”) under Article 13(4) of the Convention between the Government of the Republic of India and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for the avoidance of double taxation and prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income and capital gains (“the India-UK Treaty”)?
LS Cable & System Limited Vs. DDIT, Delhi
The question cannot be said to be already pending for adjudication before the Income-tax authority unless notice u/s 143(2) is issued before the application is filed. In this case, though return of income was filed before filing of the application before this Authority, notice u/s 143(2) was issued after the application was filed and hence the question cannot be said to be already pending before the Income-tax Authority irrespective of the notice u/s 143(2) being issued subsequently within the prescribed time limit under the Act.
Booz & Company (Australia) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DDIT (IT), Mumbai
(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the payments received/receivable by the Applicant in connection with the provision of services of technical/professional personnel to Booz & Company (India) Private Limited (”Booz India”) is chargeable to tax in India as “Fees for Technical Services”(in short“FTS”) /Royalty under the provisions of Article 12 and its sub articles of the relevant India – and the country concerned Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“the Tax Treaty”) in the absence of Permanent Establishment(“PE”) in India?(expression supplied)
Mrs. Smita Anand Vs. DDIT (IT), New Delhi
Whether the “Applicant”, a non-resident Individual as per the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 , is taxable in India in respect of amount of proceeds received in US and subsequently remitted into her Indian savings bank account in the FY 2010-11, upon exercise of following options / stocks which were granted to the applicant by her employer in China and which were vested as well as exercised by her during the tenure of her employment with Hewitt China: - (i) Historic Restricted Stock Units awarded under an Employees Stock Incentive Scheme by her employer Hewitt China; and
Endemol India Private Limited Vs. CIT, Mumbai
the services provided by the non-resident companies to the applicant company are line production services. In the applicant’s case in AAR No.1083 we have already held that the payments of similar nature are specifically characterized as work for the purpose of section 194C by Explanation to that section. Following our ruling in the applicants own case in AAR 1083 of 2011 dated 13th December, 2013, we hold that the payments made by the applicant to the non-resident company specifically falls under the definition of work under section 194C of the IT Act and they will not be taxable without Permanent Establishment in India. Consequently, the payment will not suffer withholding of tax under section 195 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Oxford University Press Vs. Dy. CIT, Mumbai
The applicant has appointed Ms Geetha Kumararaja, a resident of Colombo, Sri Lanka and designated her as “Resident Executive” as per letter of appointment - 1) Whether payment to Ms Geetha Kumararaja in her bank account in Sri Lanka, of monthly remuneration of retainer fees for services rendered in ‘Sri Lanka should be subjected to tax deduction under the income tax act, in India?- 2) Whether fixed monthly sum paid to Ms Geetha in reimbursement of expenses on storage space, telephone and internet should be subjected to tax deduction under the income tax act, in India? -3) Whether fixed monthly sum paid to Ms. Geetha in reimbursement of expenses for local conveyance should be subjected to tax deduction under the income tax act, in India?
Steria (India) Limited Vs. JCIT, New Delhi
(1) The payment made by Steria (India) Limited for the management services provided by Groupe Steria SCA will be taxable as Fees for Technical Services. - (2) As the consideration for the services is held to be taxable in India, the applicant will be liable to withhold tax as per the provision of Section 195 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 from the payments made/to be made to Steria France.
Pan-Asia iGATE Solutions
1. Whether the tax is required to be withheld by the Applicant under section 195 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on purchase of 1,82,55,396 equity shares of Patni Computer Systems Ltd , being listed security, from iSolutions, Inc. USA at 10.56 per cent (inclusive of surcharge and cess) of the amount of long term capital gains arising to iSolutions, Inc. as per the proviso to section 112(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961? - 2) Whether the tax is required to be withheld by the Applicant under section 195 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on purchase by it of 1,59,20,264 shares (included in 1,82,55,396 shares referred to above) issued by Patni as bonus equity shares, being listed security, from iSolutions, Inc. USA as 10.56 per cent (inclusive of surcharge and cess) of the amount of long term capital gains arising to iSolutions, Inc. as per the proviso to section 112(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?
The Royal Bank of Scotland, N.V. Vs. DIT (IT), Kolkata
1) Whether tax is required to be deducted at source under section 192 of the Act, by the Applicant on the contribution to the superannuation fund (for an amount exceeding one lakh rupees per employee) as perquisite and where the same is not so deducted, whether the Applicant would be treated as a ‘assessee in default’?