the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the second reassessment proceedings were not validly initiated and thereby quashing the reassessment proceedings-the proceedings initiated by the AO for the second time under Section 147 is barred by limitation-even the proviso to Section 147 does not come into play on the facts of the case-AIT-2010-373-HC   Even if the goods belong to same entry, manufacture does take place if new identifiable/marketable goods known in market emerge due to operation conducted-the process of ironing applied to the stiched brassieres prior to their packing was a process incidental to the completion of the brassieres as a manufactured product-process of purification and filtration being incidental or ancillary to the manufacture of a marketable product, the Respondent was entitled to Modvat credit on the inputs involved-AIT-2010-370-HC   Larger Bench of CESTAT rules the Tribunal has ample power to condone the delay in filing the appeal including the one filed under section 35 E (4)-AIT-2010-372-CESTAT Corruption in IRS takes its toll-Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Dhananjay Kumar arrested by CBI in Mumbai-Joint Commissioner of Customs & Excise Hemant Kothikar also arrested by CBI     FM directs expediting of Cadre Restructuring in CBDT & CBEC      Tariff Value for import of Brass Scrap is 3924-Customs Non-Tariff Notification No. 78    Chief Justice of Gauhati High Court Justice Ranjan Gogoi to be Chief Justice of Punjab & Haryana High Court    Anti-dumping duty on imports of Acrylic  Fibre originating in, or exported from Japan and Belarus-Customs Tariff Notification No.85  Prescribing SION for new product “Propylene” under Chemical & Allied Products Group-DGFT PN 7    Inclusion of Finished Leather in the Focus Product Scheme of FTP-DGFT PN 6    Exchange Rate for imported goods is Rs 47.25 per US Dollar and Rs 60.35  per EURO-Exchange Rate for export goods is Rs 46.30 per US Dollar and Rs 58.70 per EURO-Customs Non-Tariff Notification No. 77-Click on Exchange Rate for details   Anti Dumping Duty under the Notification No.15/2007 is not applicable to Spandex Yarn (Elastomeric yarn)-Customs Circular No.30    Import of goods under Notification No.13/2010 for Commonwealth Games, 2010-Customs Circular No.31    Larger Bench of CESTAT rules charges towards pre-delivery inspection and after-sale-service by dealers from buyers of the cars to be included in the assessable value of cars for payment of excise duty-AIT-2010-366-CESTAT    merely because there was non accounting of goods, penalty was technical and inference of clandestine removal was not called for-AIT-2010-365-HC  ITAT rules provision for doubtful debts and provision for standard debts are to be taken into consideration for computation of book profit u/s. 115JB of the IT Act-AIT-2010-361-ITAT    HC rules slitting of aluminum foils into customized width, mounting the same on the printing machine and thereafter printing the necessary text thereon is covered for 80IB benefit as it  falls within the ambit of the term “produce”-AIT-2010-363-HC    Definitive Anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of Coumarin, originating in, or exported from China-Customs Tariff Notification No. 82   Special Bench of ITAT Ruling-where a forward contract is entered into by the assessee to sell the foreign currency at an agreed price at a future date falling beyond the last date of accounting period, the loss is incurred to the assessee on account of evaluation of the contract on the last date of the accounting period i.e. before the date of maturity of the forward contract-AIT-2010-355-ITAT-SB       
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

No tax on the examination fees collected for non-resident

AIT News Network

NEW DELHI. Authority for Advance Rulings(Income-Tax) vide AIT-2008-152-AAR has ruled that  the examination fee collected by the applicant on behalf of two professional organizations in USA, namely, APICS and AST&L and remitted to those two organizations is not to be treated as the ‘income’ of the said entities liable to be taxed in India. The applicant is not required to either deduct any income-tax or to pay any such tax on the examination fees collected by it for APICS and AST&L and remitted to them as the same is not taxable in India.

                M/s KnoWerX Education (India) Private Limited, is engaged in promoting professional examinations/certification programmes of foreign institutes, societies, professional bodies, etc., of international repute, which do not have any establishment of their own in India.  In the course of this activity, the applicant has signed an agreement with the American Production and Inventory Control Society, Inc. (APICS) which is a non-profit making body, and offers three certification programmes, namely, CPIM, CIRM and CSCP.  The applicant is in the process of signing another agreement with the American Society of Transportation and Logistics Inc. (AST&L) which is also a non-profit making body and offers its own certification programme known as CTL programme.  Apart from this, the applicant carries on other activities as well, such as, corporate training, open public training, management consultancy, publishing and  trading in educational material, etc.  So far as promotion of professional examination/certification programmes of foreign entities is concerned, the applicant will act as their agent; it will collect registration forms and fees from the individuals in India, who wish to register themselves for the examination; and pass them on to the foreign entity after deducting its administrative cost and commission.  The foreign entity will conduct examinations either through the applicant or through other entities in India.  The evaluation of answer sheets and award of certificates will be done by those foreign entities and they will send certificates to the applicant for local distribution to the successful candidates.  In the light of above mentioned facts, the applicant sought advance ruling of this Authority in respect of APICS and AST&L on the following questions:-

Q.1          a) Whether the examination fee collected by the applicant on behalf of two professional organizations in USA, namely, APICS and AST&L and remitted to those two organizations is liable to be treated as the ‘income’ of the said entities liable to be taxed in India?

b) If the answer is in affirmative, how that income has to be classified – such as business income, income from  royalty, technical services?

Q.2          Whether the applicant has a legal obligation to deduct tax at source in relation thereto under the relevant provisions of Income-tax Act, 1961 and if so at what rate?

                Authority observed that the applicant is not a part of APICS.  It does not conclude any contracts on behalf of APICS.  The acceptance of candidature of an individual for a certification examination is solely done by APICS.  The applicant does not maintain stock of goods or merchandise belonging to APICS, it does not secure orders wholly or almost wholly for APICS and it does not in any way bind APICS in the conduct of latter’s examination programme in India.  Similar will be the position in respect of AST&L. The applicant thus cannot be regarded as a dependent agent of APICS or AST&L under paragraph 4 of article 5. It is seen that the applicant enjoys an independent status.  As stated by the applicant, there is no financial, managerial or any other type of participation between it and APICS.   It carries on a variety of activities as noted above, besides promoting examinations of APICS and AST&L.  So far as promotion of examination is concerned, it has engaged itself into business relationship with APICS, is in the process of forging such relationship with AST&L, and is open to having such relationship with other foreign entities.  Thus, in respect of this activity too, the applicant is not wholly or substantially devoted to APICS and AST&L only.  The applicant appears to carry on the work of examination promoter in the ordinary course of its business.   The applicant is not subject to any control of APICS with regard to the manner in which it shall carry out its activities with regard to promotion of the certificate examination.  We are thus of the view that in terms of paragraph 5 of article 5 the applicant cannot be deemed to be a permanent establishment of APICS and /or AST&L in India.

(Click here for Full Text of Ruling)

Related News :

 

 

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