What was the purpose for which the tender was invited by BMRC cannot be in doubt in this case. It was for installing the signaling and communication system for the metro rail. It was not for supply of offshore equipments independently of the installation and commissioning. Nor was it for independent installation and commissioning, divorced from the design and supply of the equipments necessary. Such a contract has necessarily to be read as a whole and is not capable of being split up.
Assessee was a tax resident of Singapore. The applicant sought a ruling on taxability of subscription fee received from users in India to access the online information database maintained by it. AAR was of the view that the market intelligence services provided by the applicant on online portal was taxable as Royalty as per Clause (iv) of Explanation 2 to Section 9(1) (vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 The same was also taxable as Royalty as per Article 12(2) of India -Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement.
In Re Shell Technology India Private Limited (AAR) – The applicant is said to be providing scientific and technical services to Overseas Shell group entities. SSSABV, a company incorporated in Netherlands, through its branch in the Philippines, is currently providing back office financial services relating to accounts etc. to the applicant. It is seen that software are installed for that purpose; but it has not been clarified whether they are installed in India or in the Philippines. It appears to us that this aspect may not matter, as the software is used by the Philippines branch of SSSABV for rendering the services to the applicant and not by the applicant itself,
Foster Pty. Ltd., In Re- Advance Ruling Authority The applicant is a company incorporated in Australia and is a tax resident of that country. The applicant entered into a contract with Ravva Oil Singapore (Singapore) Pte. Ltd., a company incorporated under the laws of Singapore for provision of services in connection with the business of oil and gas exploration and production. Ravva Oil Singapore alongwith others has in turn entered into a production sharing contract with the Government of India for the exploration, development and production of mineral oil and gas in the Ravva Oil and Gas Field. The applicant submits that Ravva Oil Singapore was not deducting tax on payments made by it to the applicant under the belief that such payments were not chargeable to tax in India. In this context, the applicant has approached this Authority with the present application seeking an advance ruling on the question whether the consideration received/receivable by the applicant under the terms of the agreement with Ravva Oil Singapore is liable to tax as royalty as defined in Article 12 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Australia.
Deepak Cables (India) Limited Vs. DIT (International Taxation), Bangalore (Advance Ruling Authority)- It is the case of the applicant that transfer of the goods by LS Cables, Korea to the applicant being outside India, there is no territorial nexus for taxation regarding those off-shore supplies. It is pointed out that the applicant after obtaining the goods from LS Cables, Korea sells them to KPTCL for consideration. For its on-shore activity, including the sale it is taxed in India. Learned Counsel specifically requested as to note that sale by the applicant to KPTCL is taxed in India since it is taxable in India and that part of the contract is not involved in this application.
Recently, the Authority for Advanced Ruling held that pendency of a similar matter of the applicant in respect to transaction with a different party, before a statutory forum, is no bar to seek advance ruling in respect of another transaction.
Verizon Data Services India Private Limited (A.A.R. Nos. 865 of 2010) – The AAR held that the seconded personnel are employees of a foreign company and render managerial services to the Applicant. Hence, the payments made would be in the nature of income and would be regarded as fees for included services under the provisions of the India – US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (US DTAA) as well as fees for technical services under the provisions of the Indian Tax laws. Furthermore, the ‘make available’ criteria, as stipulated in the US DTAA, are not required to be satisfied in the case of managerial services. Hence, taxes were required to be withheld on the Applicant’s payments to its US affiliate.
OHM Limited v. DIT (AAR No. 935 of 2010) – Foreign firms operating in the country will have to pay tax at the existing rate of 4.223 per cent on revenue earned under seismic data acquisition and processing contracts, says a tribunal. In a ruling, the Authority of Advanced Rulings (AAR) held that foreign firms would not enjoy any leeway even if their income falls under the label of royalties or is considered as fees for technical services.
Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) in the case of D.B.Zwirn Mauritius (AAR No. 879 of 2011) (Judgment date: 28 March 2011) dealt with the issue of taxability of capital gains on sale of shares by a Mauritian entity under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) or India-Mauritius tax treaty (the tax treaty). The AAR held that the applicant, holding tax residence certificate, was eligible for the tax treaty benefits. Accordingly, under Article 13(4) of the tax treaty the taxpayer is not liable to pay capital gains tax in India in respect of the transfer of shares held in an Indian company.
The plain reading of the income tax provisions dealing with determination of residential status of an individual indicates that beneficial provisions relaxing the tax residency will apply to an Indian citizen leaving India for the purpose of employment and not otherwise. In the above case, the AAR has applied the above beneficial provisions even in the year when the individual returns back to India.
