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.
AAR in the case Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company held that capital gains provisions are not attracted in case of transfer of shares without consideration. Further, the AAR held that the transfer pricing provisions in an international transaction can be applied only when income is chargeable to tax in India and since in the present case no income was chargeable to tax in India the question of applicability of Transfer Pricing provisions and withholding tax under Section 195 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) does not arise.
We have a case where the equipment is purchased or taken on lease by the applicant. It is proposed to be granted on a lease for a short term (in fact, on behalf of the petitioner it is submitted that it was proposed to grant a lease for two years only). The lease amount or rent is to bear only a small proportion to the cost of the equipment.
VNU International B. V., AAR No. 871 of 2010, order dated 28 March 2011- Whether capital gains earned by the applicant on transfer of shares of the Indian company would be liable to tax in India as per the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟) and the Tax Treaty between India and The Netherlands? If the capital gain is not taxable in India, whether the applicant is required to file any return of income under section 139 of the Act? Whether the transfer of shares by the applicant would attract transfer pricing provisions under sections 92 to 92F of the Act? Whether the purchasers were liable to withhold tax at source under section 195 of the Act and if so, on what amount should the tax have been deducted?
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.
Authority for Advance Rulings has rendered an important ruling in the case of Transworld Garnet Company Ltd. dealing with the issue of whether or not the non-availability of the indexation benefit under the provisions Second proviso to section 48 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to non-residents amounts to discrimination under the India-Canada Double Tax Avoidance Agreement . After considering the various provisions of the Act and Article 24 of the tax treaty, the AAR held that the denial of indexation benefits to the applicant does not amount to discriminatory treatment under the tax treaty.
Dissemination of informations, furnishing guidelines and suggesting plans of action aimed at uniformity and seamless quality in business dealings of participating group entities do not per se amount to making available to them technical knowledge and experience possessed by EMEIA to a substantial extent; There is no transfer of technical know-how in that pro
Where the agreement was executed outside India and the delivery of the vessel also took place outside India, by reason of the mere presence of the vessel in India without the volition of Vessel Providing Companies, the source of income cannot be said to be located in India
The transfer of equity shares in Indian company would not be regarded as transfer within the meaning of section 45 read with section 47(iv) of the Income-tax Act and hence the gains if any arising on transfer would not be taxable in India The applicant has no liability to pay capital gains tax under section 45 and minimum alternate tax under section 115JB of the Ac
As the applicant does not have any physical presence in India in the form of an office or branch or a PE, the provisions of section 115JB are not applicable on the sale of shares of a listed company by the applicant, which has suffered securities transaction tax and accordingly, tax exempt under section 10(38)
