AIT-2016-01-AAR
M/s. J.P. Morgan Services India Private Limited Vs.
Commissioner of
Service Tax, Mumbai |
Service Tax:
The applicant floated the scheme moreover as an employment retainment
programme. Under the scheme, the applicant was to provide vehicles to its
employees during the employment of the same. The applicant was to hire the
cars from the car leasing companies and under the scheme those cars would
be made available to such employees who are firstly continuing to be the
employees of the applicant and secondly who accept the option to have the
car for their personal as well as official use and in lieu of this, the
company was to charge the said employees the same amount which the
applicant would be paying to the car leasing company from whom they hire
the car. |
AIT-2016-06-AAR
Cummins Limited
Vs. DCIT, Staines |
whether the
supply management service fees received by Cummins Limited, UK from
Cummins Technologies India Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘CTIL’)
pursuant to Material Suppliers Management Service Agreement between
Cummins Limited and CTIL, is in the nature of “Fees for Technical
Services” or “royalties” within the meaning of the term in Article 13 of
the India-UK DTAA)? |
AIT-2016-07-AAR
Dow AgroSciences Agricultural Products Ltd.
Vs. DCIT (IT) |
(1) Whether
on the facts and circumstances of the case, the investment held by the
Applicant in equity shares of Dow Agrosciences India Private Limited
(hereinafter referred to as ‘DAS India’) would be considered as ‘capital
asset’ under section 2(14) of the Act?
- 2.
Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, whether capital gains
arising from the proposed transfer of shares of DAS India by the Applicant
to DAS Singapore (a company proposed to be incorporated in Singapore),
would be subject to tax in India? |
AIT-2016-08-AAR
Aberdeen Claims Administration Inc.
Vs. DCIT |
The issues involved in all three applications relate to taxability of the
settlement amount received from Satyam Computers Services Limited and PWC
under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 |
AIT-2016-09-AAR
Qualified Settlement Fund (QSF), USA
Vs. DCIT (IT), Hyderabad |
The settlement amount payable/paid by Satyam under the stipulation to the
QSF pursuant to the judgment and final approval of the US Court cannot be
regarded as sum chargeable under the provisions of the Act in the hands of
QSF |
AIT-2016-10-AAR
Aker Contracting FP ASA
Vs. DCIT (IT), Mumbai |
1.Whether
based on the stated facts of the case and in law, the consideration
received by the Applicant under the Change Order for undertaking the
following [before the floating production storage and offloading system,
(‘FPSO’) arrived in India], is in the nature of business profits or in the
nature of ‘fees for technical services’ as defined in the Explanation 2 of
section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’)?:
|
AIT-2016-13-AAR
M/s Indus Towers Limited
Vs. CCE, Delhi |
Service Tax:
M/s Indus
Towers Limited, is engaged in business of providing telecommunication
infrastructure support services to mobile telecom operators in India.
-
The applicant is eligible to avail Cenvat Credit of Excise Duty under the
Central Excise Act, 1944 / Additional Duty of Excise under Section 3(1) of
the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 paid on parts and spares used for their
replacement of the defective ones and Service Tax paid on inspection,
Certification and engineering services etc. for the aforesaid repair and
maintenance activities and claim set off against the output service tax
paid for rendering of passive infrastructure service by the applicant to
its customers |
AIT-2016-14-AAR
M/s SICPA India Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. CST, New Delhi |
Service Tax:
applicant offers services for the provision of automated, online ID and 2D
bar code printing system, labeling application system, aggregation system
and dispatch system in accordance with ESCIMS standard operating
procedures for distilleries, breweries and wineries. The applicant has in
this regard entered into System Delivery Agreements with said customers to
provide for a System comprising of a complete set of various machines/
equipments which are installed and commissioned by the applicant as per
ESCIMS |
AIT-2016-15-AAR
M/s. Creative Problem Solving India
Vs. CST, Mumbai |
Service Tax:
The applicant herein has entered into a MoU with one foreign firm IDEAS
(i.e. IDEAS Management Consultants, Oman). Under that MoU, the applicant
has agreed to become a Distributor of the books of various nature which
will be supplied by IDEAS and those books will be sold to the various
purchasers in India |
AIT-2016-25-AAR
M/s GoDaddy India Web Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CST, Gurgaon |
Service Tax:
the various support services
proposed to be provided by the Applicant to GoDaddy US are a “bundle of
Services” being naturally bundled in the ordinary course of business and
accordingly is a single service, being business support service, in terms
of Section 66F of the Finance Act - the place of provision of business
support service provided by the applicant, is outside India in terms of
Rule 3 of the Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012.
|
AIT-2016-26-AAR
M/s Universal Services India Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. CST, Delhi |
Service Tax:
service provided by the applicant to WWD US is processing of payments,
which is the main service. Further, applicant is providing this service to
WWD US on his own account for a fee equal to the operating costs incurred
by the applicant plus mark-up of 13% on such costs. Therefore it cannot be
inferred that the applicant would be providing payment processing service
to the Indian Customer, for the service rendered by WWD US to them. If
that was the case, applicant would not receive any fees from WWD US in
respect of payments by the Indian Customer remitted directly through
International Credit Card to their service provider i.e., WWD US. But that
is not the case. Further, the definition of “intermediary” as envisaged
under Rule 2 (f) of POPS does not include a person who provides the main
service on his own account. In the present case, applicant is providing
main service i.e. “business support services” to WWD US and on his own
account. Therefore, applicant is not an “intermediary” and the service
provided by him is not intermediary service. |
AIT-2016-31-AAR
M/s Lakhani Footwear Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC (CE & ST), Dehradun |
Applicant
proposes to effect substantial expansion in the existing location by
installing more than 25% additional plant and machinery and constructing
new building; that thus there would be substantial expansion by 25% which
qualifies as substantial expansion as per Board’s Circular No. 772/5/2004
CX. dated 21.1.2004; that for this Haridwar Plant-II, applicant would
obtain separate factory license and E.S.I., PF Code; that applicant
proposes to separate existing works with the proposed Haridwar Plant-II by
putting a wall in between the two. |
AIT-2016-36-AAR
M/s Berco Undercarriages (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, CE & ST, Hyderabad |
Service Tax:
While discharging foreign C & F
Agent raised composite bill / invoice liability under reverse charge,
Service Tax is chargeable on said bill / invoice excluding expenditure or
costs incurred by C & F Agent as a pure agent, if conditions enumerated in
Rule 5 of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 are met. |
AIT-2016-45-AAR
M/s Hyundai Rotem Company Vs. CC, CE & ST, Hyderabad |
Service Tax:
Applicant is eligible for claiming exemption
from payment of Service Tax in terms of Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated
20.06.2012 for the activities in relation to Testing & Commissioning,
Integrated Testing & Commissioning and Trial runs of Trains to be
undertaken under the contract |
AIT-2016-46-AAR
M/s Choice Estates and Constructions Ltd.Vs. CC, CE & ST, Cochin |
Service Tax:
Applicant submits that they along-with
Choice Foundation are partnering together to providing education services
up to Higher Secondary School, which is a service mentioned in the
Negative List under Section 66 D (1) of the Finance Act, 1994 -a) Service
Tax is applicable on the revenue share relating to the applicant to the
extent it is relatable to rendering of taxable service. - b) Service Tax
is applicable on the revenue share relating to Choice Foundation to the
extent it is relatable to rendering of taxable service.
|
AIT-2016-47-AAR
M/s AKQA Media India Private Ltd. Vs. CST, Mumbai |
Service Tax:
In proposed Business Model 1, while the applicant shall be appointed by
its clients i.e. the advertiser to provide services, incidental receipt of
incentives/volume discounts from Media Owner shall not be considered to be
providing a service, as defined under the Finance Act, 1994, to the Media
Owner and shall not be liable to Service Tax. |
AIT-2016-57-AAR
T.T. Recycling Management India
Vs. CCE, Noida |
Processing of secondary raw materials (steel scrap of difference and
variable composition) into blended steel scrap is liable for payment of
Central Excise duty under the provision of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
|
AIT-2016-58-AAR
M/s. Nucleus Software Exports Ltd.
Vs. CCE, Bangaluru |
The activity of loading of business software in the Nucleus Device by the
applicant will not constitute manufacture under the Central Excise Law |
AIT-2016-62-AAR
M/s Global Transportation Services Private Limited
Vs. CST, Mumbai |
Service Tax:
The
freight margin recovered by the applicant from its customer in an outbound
shipment is not taxable under the Finance Act, 1994 in light of Rule 10 of
Place of Provision Rules, 2012 on account of the fact that place of
provision of service would be outside India. |
AIT-2016-63-AAR
M/s Samsung India Electronics Private Limited
Vs. CC, Delhi |
we have to see whether Galaxy K Zoom is sold at phone shop / market or at
camera shop / market. The answer is clear that such a product is sold at
phone shop. Therefore, as per trade parlance and consumer perception test
also, the product is mobile phone, classifiable under CTH 8517 12 |
AIT-2016-66-AAR
M/s Middleby Celfrost Innovations Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC |
Applicant submits that the business model of the applicant is such that it
will not be known at the time of importation whether the goods to be
imported will be sold to industrial consumer, institutional consumer or
retail consumer. Further, there is always a possibility that the same may
be sold to the retail consumer, in which case; there will be a requirement
to affix MRP under the Legal Metrology Act read with Legal Metrology
(Packaged Commodities) Rules on such packages of goods to be imported. |
AIT-2016-67-AAR
M/s Prajesh Marketing Limited
Vs. CC |
The benefit of the Notification No. 12/2012-Cus is available to NSOP (Non
Schedule Operator’s Permit) holder for the following categories of revenue
flights (with published tariff) proposed to be undertaken; |
AIT-2016-73-AAR
MERO Asia Pacific Pte Ltd. Vs. JCIT, Chennai |
whether the
amounts, received/receivable by the applicant from Larsen & Toubro towards
offshore supply of goods and materials are liable to tax in India under
the provisions of the Indian Income Tax Act read with the Agreement for
the Avoidance of Double Taxation between India and Singapore? |
AIT-2016-74-AAR
UC Berkeley Center for Executive Education, USA VS. JCIT |
(i) Whether
programme fee received by the applicant in terms of clause 2 of the
Programme Delivery Agreement is chargeable to tax in India as fees for
included services within the meaning of the said term under Article 12 of
India-US DTAA and/or the provisions of Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax
Act and, therefore, subject to withholding tax under Section 195 of the
Income Tax Act, 1961? |