In Re Shell Technology India Private Limited (AAR)- It cannot be denied that the Applicant receives services in the form of general finance advice, Taxation advice, legal advice, advice on Information Technology, media advice, assistance in contract and procurement and assistance in Marketing. It is trite that these advisory services would be consultancy services if the element of expertise or special knowledge on the part of the consultant is established. In the facts of the case before us, SIPCL, the consultant in the present case, is in the business of providing advice and services to various Shell Operating companies.
In Re SEPCO III Electric Power Construction (AAR)- The applicant is a company incorporated under the laws of China on 26.3.2009. The applicant, among other things, is a supplier of equipments for Electric Power Projects. On 26.3.2009, the applicant entered into a contract with M/s Jhajjar Power Limited, for supplying of equipments for the Haryana Power Project.
CTCI Overseas Corporation Ltd. In Re (AAR)- In the present case, though the applicant has a business connection in India, it has not carried out any part of the business relating to offshore supplies in India. Under the deeming provision of section 9(1) read with Explanation 1(a), any business income accruing or arising to the applicant can be taxed in India only in respect of such operations carried out in India.
In Re Foster Wheeler France SA (AAR)- Just like our considering the date of hearing of the application under section 245R of the Act would make for uncertainty, the fixing of the date of notice under section 143(2) / 142(1) of the Act by the income-tax authority as the starting point, would result in vagaries and to the use of different yardsticks to different applicants, it would depend on the diligence or non-diligence of the Assessing Officer, whether he had issued the notice before or after the application before this Authority has been filed and the nature of the notice.
In Re WaveField Inseis ASA (AAR) When this Authority took the view in Monte Harris and other cases that the date of the filing of the application before the Authority should be the crucial date for determining the question of the applicability of clause (i) of the proviso to section 245R(2) of the Act and not the date when the application comes up for hearing either under section 245R(2) or under section 245R(4) of the Act,
In Re Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. (AAR) – Since the question whether the payment made under the transaction was chargeable to tax under the Act was pending before the authorities under the Act arising out of an assessment against ASE, before the applicant approached this Authority the allowing of this application under Section 245R(2) of the Act is barred. The bar is in entertaining an application where the question raised in the application is already pending before any income-tax authority. Since we have found that the question arising before us, the primary question, if not the only question, is whether the payment to be made by the applicant to ASE on the transaction(s) is chargeable under the Act is already pending in proceedings against the payee, ASE, entertainment of the present application is barred by clause (i) of the proviso to Section 245R(2) of the Act. We, therefore, reject the application.
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,
Re- Perfetti Van Melle Holding B.V., Netherlands (AAR) – Applicant seeks advance ruling on the following questions:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case whether the payment to be made by Perfetti Van Melle India Private Limited (‘Perfetti India’) for the cost to be allocated by Perfetti Van Melle Holding BV (‘the Applicant’) will not be taxable in India in the hands of the Applicant as per the provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (‘DTAA’) entered into between India and The Netherlands?
Re Poonawalla Aviation Private Limited (AAR) – Clause 7 speaks of India limiting its taxation at source on interest dealt with in Article 12 of the Convention by providing a lower rate or by providing a scope more restricted than the rate or scope provided for in the Convention, the same rate or scope shall also apply to the Convention in question. A question of lowering of rates is not involved here. What is contended is that the scope of taxation of interest has been further restricted by taking out of the purview of taxation, even loans or credits insured by Banque Francaise du Commerce Exteriur or COFACE. Going strictly by the other treaties relied on the restriction is only on taxing the interest income insured by Banque Francaise.
In Re Groupe Industrial Marcel Dassault (AAR)- It is true that a Double Taxation Avoidance Convention has to be construed on its terms. On a literal construction paragraph 5 would lead to the position that the transfer of shares of ShanH in this case, can be taxed only in France. But the contention of the Revenue is that the situs of the underlying assets cannot be ignored and the underlying assets and controlling interest are that of a company incorporated in India and a resident of India.
