A ruling pronounced by this Authority is binding on the applicant, in respect of the transaction in relation to which the ruling has been sought and on the Commissioner and the income-tax authorities subordinate to him. The ruling is in respect of the applicant and the transaction involved.

Question No. 2 is whether even otherwise the transaction will stand outside section 45 of the Act in view of the section 47 (iv) of the Act. In the light of the Ruling on question No. 1, this question may have no efficacy. Counsel argued that an earlier Ruling rendered by this Authority In re RST (AAR No. 1067 of 2011) requires reconsideration.

According to the applicant, the merger and consequent transfer of all assets and liabilities did not generate any gain. The applicant was in involved circumstances. That is why the merger with the parent company was thought of. On a merger, the transferor is effaced. The transaction undertaken is apparently one sanctioned by Swiss law. The gain if any in this case is not determinable within the scope of section 45 and section 48 of the Act as postulated in the Ruling in Dana Corporation (AAR No.788 of 2008). On a consideration of the facts obtaining in this case, I am of the view that no capital gain chargeable to tax under the Act in terms of section 45 read with section 48 can be said to arise.

The services rendered by the applicant are technical in nature and do not fall within the exception provided in the definition of FTS since the applicant has not actually carried out any mining or like project. It can at best be said that the services were rendered “in connection with” the mining activity undertaken by the Indian Companies. The applicant cannot be taxed under section 44BB since it had merely contracted to render some prospecting services through a sub-contractor in India.

In present case the applicant just has the right to terminate the secondment agreement, hence, the amount paid by Indian WOS to foreign parent under the secondment agreement is not mere reimbursement and is income of the parent company. Therefore, the applicant is liable to withhold taxes from payments made to foreign parent company.

In the context of section 47(i) and (iii), this gift referred to therein, is a gift by an individual or a Joint Hindu Family or a Human Agency. Section 47(iii) speaks of ‘any transfer of a capital asset under a gift, or will or an irrecoverable trust’. Execution of a will involves a human agency. Cannot the expression gift take its colour from a will with which it is juxtaposed, especially in the background of clause (i) of section 47 and clause (ii) which earlier existed.

Whether the applicant is required to file its return of income under section 139 of the Act, in case, its capital gains is not chargeable to tax in India is question no.6 posed. It has been found that though the applicant would be chargeable to capital gains tax on the proposed sale of shares under the Act, it has been ruled that in view of the benefit available to the applicant by the invocation of section 90(2) of the Act and the DTAC between the two countries, the authorities under the Act cannot tax the income in view of paragraph 4 of Article 13 of the DTAC.

Learned counsel for the Revenue argued that the beneficial ownership of the shares vested with Copal Jersey and that ownership should determine the applicatory law. India did not have a treaty with Jersey and hence on the application of the Income-tax Act, the capital gains are taxable in India. He pointed out that there was no dispute that the gains were taxable under the Act.

The argument that unless the capital gain is actually taxed in Mauritius the DTAC would not apply in the context of section 90(1) and section 90(2) of the Act, though attractive, cannot be entertained in view of the decision in Union of India vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan. Even though capital gain is not actually taxed in Mauritius, the question raised is seen to be concluded by the decision in Union of India vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan. If it wants to, it is for the revenue to canvass the question before the Supreme Court. This Authority is bound by that decision. Here, the assets proposed to be transferred come under paragraph 4 of Article 13 of the DTAC between India and Mauritius. The applicant being a tax resident of Mauritius in the light of the tax residency certificate produced by it, going by the decision in Union of India vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan, it has to be held that the gain that may arise to the applicant is not chargeable to tax in India.

This is a unique Ruling rendered by the AAR wherein the concept of PE of a group of companies has been discussed. It is well known that a subsidiary of a foreign company is not enough to qualify the former as a PE of later or its group companies. The mere existence of a company control is not, in fact, enough, in accordance with Article 5 of the OECD Model, However, considering the peculiar facts of the case, in this ruling the AAR has observed that 100% subsidiary is created for the purpose of attending to the business of the Group in India and therefore, such Indian subsidiary must be taken to be a PE of the Group in India.