The AAR held that the fee received by US Co from the Applicant is in the nature of business profits of US Co and the same is not taxable in India in the absence of US Co constituting a permanent establishment (PE) in India under the India-US tax treaty (Tax Treaty). Further, the Applicant is not required to withhold taxes under the Indian Tax Law (ITL) while making remittance to US Co as it has not derived any income chargeable to tax in India.

Last year’s budget had introduced an investment linked tax incentive for specified business including the business of laying and operating a cross country natural gas or crude or petroleum oil pipeline network for distribution, including storage facilities being an integral part of such network. One condition for availing this benefit was that not less than one–third of the total pipeline capacity is available for use on common carrier basis.

Authority for advance ruling recently held that payments received by the Applicant from its Indian reseller for supply of software products to end users should not be classified as royalty. The AAR further held that the relationship between the Applicant and the reseller does not create a permanent establishment (PE) for the Applicant under the agency rule. Hence, the payment should not be taxed in India under the provisions of the India-Japan Tax Treaty (Treaty).

Mumbai bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in the case of JCIT v. State Bank of Mauritius Ltd. (2009-TIOL-712-ITAT-MUM) has held that the foreign company having Permanent Establishment (PE) in India cannot be taxed at the rate applicable to domestic company in view of insertion of Explanation 1 to section 90 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) by Finance Act 2001 with retrospective effect from 1 April 1962. Accordingly, it will have to pay tax at the rate prescribed in the Finance Act (i.e. at higher rate) even if a taxpayer is covered by the provisions of the India-Mauritius tax treaty (the tax treaty).

The Delhi Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in the case of Sabre Inc. v. DCIT (2009-TIOL- 488-ITAT-DEL) ruled on the taxability of the income earned through Computer Reservation System (CRS) in India. The Tribunal after following the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Galileo International Inc. v. DCIT [2009] 180 Taxman 357 (Del) held that since the income attributable to the Permanent Establishment (PE) in India was less than the remuneration paid to the distributor in India by the taxpayer no income was taxable in hands of Sabre Inc.

Tribunals upheld the concept of ‘make available’ and held specified services not Fees for technical services Mumbai and Bangalore bench of Tribunal upheld the concept of ‘make available’ in two different cases and held that the specified services were not in the nature of Fees for included/technical services.

A T Kearney Ltd., UK („assessee?), a company engaged in the business of providing management consulting services, carried on its business operations in India through its branch office . The assessee deputed highly experienced personnel to train and develop the local expertise to provide services to Indian clients in line with its global standards. The expatriate employees continued to draw their salaries from the overseas office.

Cable & Wireless Networks India Private Limited („the applicant?) is engaged in the business of providing international and domestic long distance telecommunication services in India. It proposes to enter into an agreement with its group company, Cable and Wireless UK („C&W UK?) to provide end to end international long distance telecommunication services to its Indian customers.

The applicant is a non-resident shipping Company incorporated under the laws of Switzerland and is in the business of shipping contracts for the transportation of cargo worldwide. During the financial years 2007-08 and 2008-09, the applicant entered into a shipping contract for transportation of cargo from Indian ports to China. The amount of freight for transportation of cargo from the Indian port to a port outside India was invoiced and received by the applicant.

S. 271(1)(c); in favor of taxpayer : The taxpayer was a trust organized in the US and was a resident of the US. As regards India, it was registered with SEBI as a sub- account of M/s Fidelity Management Resources Co. It filed a return of income declaring short-term capital gains and dividend income. Thereafter, based on an AAR ruling in case of XZY/ABC Equity Fund (2005) (250 ITR 194), the taxpayer filed a revised return of income,