In Re Delta Power Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. (AAR)- In the present case there is no transformation that brings about a fundamental change in the character and use of the goods. The name remains the same (i.e. accumulator, although an assembly of batteries is called a battery bank), the character and usage remain the same (i.e. provide direct current to an appliance though of differing magnitude etc.)
In Re Tiong Woon Project & Contracting Pte. Limited Vs. ADIT (International Taxation), Chennai (AAR)- Whether the different periods of the contracts are to be aggregated to reckon the threshold of 183 days under Article 5.3 of the DTAA in a fiscal year in a case where the projects are not carried out for the same principal. We notice that Naftogaz India had given two orders: one order in FY 2009-10 and another in FY 2010-11.
In Re Millennium IT Software Ltd (AAR)- In the present case, not merely the use is licensed but the licensee is given the right to copy it and use it wherever it is needed by it for its business. The right given for a consideration to copy the copyrighted software and use it for its own purposes by ICEL whenever and wherever needed by it, clearly attracts the definition of royalty to the consideration paid by ICEL to the applicant, though the right granted may be limited and does not take in a right to further transfer the right or its use.
On the date of filing of the present application before us relating to the rights and obligations arising out of the contract dated 10.5.2006 entered into by the applicant, in so far as it relates to the question posed in this application, was pending before the concerned assessing officer. We re-emphasize that merely because a questionnaire in general terms is served or a questionnaire raising specific issues is served as a further step towards completing the assessment, cannot lead to the position that the question sought to be raised before us is not pending before the assessing officer when the return of income is filed. We are, therefore, satisfied that the allowing of this application under section 245 R(2) of the Act for giving a ruling under section 245R(4) of the Act is barred by virtue of the proviso to section 245R (2) of the Act. The application is, therefore, rejected.
Global Geophysical Services Limited (A.A.R. No. 873 of 2010)–Would the special provisions for computing profits under section 44BB be applicable to a non-resident carrying on business of seismic data acquisition and processing under contract with Indian concerns?On an application made to the Authority of Advance Ruling by the non-resident on the above issue, the Authority observed that in an identical issue in Geofizyka Torun SP. Z.O.O. (2010) 320 ITR 0268 (AAR), it was observed that without seismic data acquisition and interpretation, it is impractical to carry out the activity of prospecting of mineral oil and gas which is a step in aid to its exploration. The seismic data (in processed form) is used to create highly accurate images of the earth’s sub-surface which in turn are used by the exploration and production companies for locating potential oil and gas reserves based upon the geology observed.
Siem Offshore Inc.Versus Commissioner concerned Director of Income-tax, Advance Ruling Authority- The payment for hire of vessels provided by the Applicant to Trans ocean would be covered under the definition of ‘plant’ as defined under section 44BB of the Act. Accordingly, consideration received for supply of vessels on hire used for offshore drilling activities and marine operations would be covered within the purview of section 44BB of the Act.
Western Geco International Limited Vs. DDIT (International Taxation), Dehradun (Advance Ruling Authority)- Even if part of the income falls under ‘Royalties’ or ‘Fees for technical Services’, there is no scope to assess such receipts under these heads, once it is held that the income is from its oil exploration and production activities as envisaged under section 44BB. We are of the view that if the applicant desires to know the answers to the two issues, then it has to first exercise the option to get its income computed under section 44BB(3). In view thereof, we answer the Question No.2 by saying that the entire mobilization/demobilization revenues received by the applicant with respect to seismic data acquisition and/or processing would be taxable in India at an effective rate of 4.223%.
LS Cable Limited vs. DIT – Nothing in law prevents the parties to enter into a contract which provides for sale of material for a specified consideration, although they were meant to be utilized in the fabrication and installation of a complete plant. Regarding the revenue’s plea that as the applicant has a PE in India, the income arising should be taxed in India, it stated that the existence of PE would be for the purpose of carrying out the contract for onshore supplies and services etc. but such a PE would have no role to play in offshore supplies. Even if a PE is involved in carrying on some incidental activities such as clearance from the port and transportation, it cannot be said that the PE is in connection with the offshore supplies. We accordingly hold that the applicant is not liable to tax in respect of offshore supplies as per the Act.
Bourbon Offshore Asia Pvt. Ltd. Vs DIT (AAR No. 937 of 2010) dated 12 July 2011- The taxpayer is engaged in the business of providing offshore oil and gas marine sub sea services. It also offers range of offshore oil service vessels to global oil and gas industry.
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.
