AAR held that a revenue sharing arrangement by creating a partnering person shall be liable to service tax if the partners are providing taxable service to one another in execution of partnering purpose even if the purpose of creating partnering person is non-taxable.
GoDaddy India Web Services Private Limited (hereinafter also referred to as applicant) proposes to enter into a ‘Services Agreement’ with GoDaddy.com, LLC (hereinafter also referred to as ‘GoDaddy US’) located in Arizona, USA and incorporated in Delaware, USA. GoDaddy US is a domain name registrar
Marketing and promotion services: Applicant proposes to engage in promotion and marketing of GoDaddy US services in India. This would essentially include increasing the awareness of services provided by GoDaddy US and establishment of the brand GoDaddy in India.
It is observed that in this case, provider of service i.e. the applicant, is located in India, which is the taxable territory; recipient i.e. GoDaddy US is located in USA; the service to be provided by the applicant i.e. business support services is not specified under Section 66 D i.e. Negative List Services;
The question is very simple and clear as to whether the sale of the books to the Indian entities involves any ‘service’ and would attract the service tax liability. The answer is clearly in negative. It is therefore, hold that this service does not entail and invite any liability for service tax.
If the installation project last for less than 183 day in a fiscal year by a Singapore Company having no Permanent Establishment in India, then business profits of Such Company earned In India from Such project are taxable only in Singapore under article 7(1) of DTAA and Not taxable in India.
Authority for Advance Rulings held In the case of Aberdeen Claims Administration Inc., USA and Aberdeen Asset Management Plc., UK that there is no doubt that the settlement amount is relatable to Satyam shares
Authority for Advance Rulings held In the case of Aker Contracting FP ASA, Norway, USA that it is beyond doubt that the consideration received as per amended order is similar to consideration received as per original contract.
Authority for Advance Rulings held In the case of Lead Counsel of Qualified Settlement Fund (QSF), USA, that it is clear that even if right to sue is considered as capital asset covered under the definition of transfer within the meaning of section 2(47), its cost of acquisition cannot be determined.
Authority for Advance Rulings held In the case of Dow AgroSciences Agricultural Products Ltd, Mauritius that the Article 13 of the Indo-Mauritius DTAA which deals with the taxation of capital gains is not applicable in the present case.
