Recently, the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) in the case of M/s Amiantit International Holding Ltd. [2010-TIOL-07-ARA-IT] held that the capital gains is taxable only when the applicant derive any profit or gain in the form of money or money’s worth or which is capable of being turned into money has accrued or arisen to the applicant.
AAR held that income received by a foreign company for procurement support services rendered by its Indian office in connection with purchase operations undertaken by other foreign company in India, is taxable in India.
Recently Bombay high court in the case of The Prudential Assurance Company Ltd. (Taxpayer) [AIT-2010-170-HC] on the binding nature of a ruling pronounced by the Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR), reiterated the relevant provisions of the Indian Tax Laws (ITL) and held that an AAR ruling is binding on a taxpayer and the Tax Authority, in relation to the transaction in respect of which the AAR ruling was sought.
This Tax Alert summarizes a recent ruling of the Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) [A.A.R. No. 797 of 2009] in the case of M/s Umicore Finance Luxembourg (Applicant). There was a sale of shares of a company by its shareholders which had received such shares on conversion of a firm into the company, under the provisions of Part IX of the Indian Company Law (ICL).
This Tax Alert summarizes a recent ruling of the Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) in the case of Ernst and Young Pvt. Ltd. (Applicant) on the taxability of payments made for support services provided by an affiliate in the UK to the Applicant. The AAR held that the provision of support services does not ‘make available’ any technology to the Applicant and, hence, the payments made are not taxable in India as ‘fees for technical services’ (FTS) under the India-UK tax treaty (Tax Treaty).
The Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) in the case of E*Trade Mauritius Ltd. (AAR No. 826 of 2009) has held that that capital gains arising from the sale of shares in an Indian company would be exempt from tax in India under Article 13(4) of the India-Mauritius Tax Treaty (tax treaty).
Recently, the Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) in the case of Royal Bank of Canada (A.A.R No 816 of 2009) has held that the profits / losses on futures and options contracts (derivative transactions) carried out by Canadian entity would be in the nature of ‘Business Income’. Further since the entity did not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, as per Article 5 of the India-Canada tax treaty (the tax treaty), the Business Income of the applicant would not be taxable in India.
In the light of the foregoing, the question is answered in the negative. To elaborate, the applicant being a non-resident during the previous year 2008-09, the income earned by him from his employment in USA can not be taxed under Income-tax Act, 1961.
The AAR held that the amount received by the applicant is taxable as FTS in India mainly because the responsibility of the German company was not limited to the supply of the drawing and design, rather as provided in the agreement, the German company would remain the consultant throughout the period of work by offering such services as may be required from time to time.
Recently, the Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has held in the case of Shri Anurag Chaudhary (AAR No. 839 of 2009) that an employee who has left India for the purpose of employment outside India would qualify as a non resident, if he was present in India for less than 182 days during a financial year (From 1st April to 31St March) . Further, it was held that the salary earned on account of employment outside India would not be taxable in India.
