Whether during the previous years relevant to assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10, the applicant, in the stated facts and circumstances, had a Permanent Establishment in India under Article 5 of India-Switzerland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement in relation to activity of charter of vessels for transporting cargoes from Indian ports to outside India ?
The contention of the Revenue is that the sub-contractor is undertaking various activities which constitute the core of the contract work entrusted to the applicant. All the activities undertaken by the sub-contractor are on behalf of the applicant and in connection with the execution of the contract between the applicant and TPT. It is pointed out that the sub-contractor is a nominee of the applicant and the delegation of work to the sub-cont
The applicant is a non-resident Company incorporated in United Kingdom. It is engaged in the business of information technology services. The applicant acquired the shares in Zensar Technologies Limited (for short `Zensar’), an Indian company by making payments in foreign currency between 1963 and 1994, after obtaining RBI’s approval.
The applicant maintains a `database’ which is located outside India and which contains the financial and economic information including fundamental data of a large number of companies world-wise. The customers of the applicant are mostly financial intermediaries and investment banks which have the need for such data. The databases contain the published information collated,
Columbia Sportswear Company Vs. DIT (International Taxation), Bangalore – (Advance Ruling Authority) – In addition to the activities relating to the purchase of goods, the Liaison Office was carrying out various activities such as ensuring the choice of quality material, occasional quality testing, conveying of requisite design, picking out competitive sellers, etc. Further, the Liaison Office facilitated the business of the applicant in Eygpt and Bangladesh. It will be unrealistic that all the activities other than the actual sale of the goods are not integral part of the business of the applicant and have no role in the profit being made by the applicant on the sale of its branded products.
9. (1) The following incomes shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India :— (i) to (v) xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx (vi) income by way of royalty payable by—
The applicant is a company incorporated in the United States and is a leading manufacturer of engineered bearings, alloys etc. The applicant has a significant shareholding in an Indian listed company, which was initially set up as joint venture with Tata Iron and Steel Company.
3. The applicant contends that the services under various contracts except contract no. 5 cannot be brought within the sweep of `royalties’ as defined in Art. XII.3 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (hereinafter referred to as `DTAA’ or `Treaty’), that there was no permanent establishment in India except in relation to Contract no.6 and that royalty income in respect of the contract no. 5
10.1 It is the common stand of both – the applicant and the Revenue, that the nature of income arising from the transfer of the applicant’s participating interest in Amguri block to the proposed partnership firm, shall be capital gains. Where they differ is regarding the mode of computation of that income. Whereas the applicant submits that sub-section( 3) of section 45 of the Act provides a particular mode
5. It would be appropriate to reproduce section 36(1)(viii) of the Act as it stood in the relevant assessment years i.e. A.Y.1997-98 in the following terms: – Section 36(1)(viii) : as it stood in the statute during the A.Y.(1997-98) 36(1) – The deductions provided for in the following clauses shall be allowed in respect of the matters dealt with therein, in computing the income referred to in section 28
