Authority for Advance Rulings held In the case of Tiong Woon Project & Contracting (Pte) Ltd. that the department has correctly provided a positive response that because the project was continued in India only for 178 days in a fiscal year
Authority for Advance Rulings held In the case of SkillSoft Ireland limited that in the case of Synopsis International Old Ltd. 212 TAXMAN 454 (Kar), high court held that merely because the words non-exclusive and non-transferrable are used in the license agreement, it does not take away the software out of definition of copyright.
Authority for Advance Rulings held In the case of Satyam Computer Services Ltd., that it is trite law that unless the payment made attracts the tax under the Income Tax Act, there would be no liability to deduct tax under Section 195 of the Income Tax Act.
Authority for Advance Rulings held In the case of Measurement Technology Limited, UK that the services under agreement No.1 relate to review by Group operation Director and general guidance given by him on financial, operational, human resource, setting up targets and performance appraisal related matters
Authority for Advance Rulings held In the case of Cummins Limited, UK that the agreement shows that the CTIL, a company incorporated in India is working with the applicant only to ensure market competitive pricing from the suppliers.
The Hon’ble Authority for Advance Rulings held that in the instant case, the Applicant charge the amount to its employees for use of the vehicles, which is equivalent to the rent amount paid to the car leasing company i.e. no extra amount is charged from employee.
Explore the GST jurisdiction ruling for Fichtner Consulting Engineers in Tamil Nadu. Understand IGST, CGST, and SGST implications for inter-state supply.
A ruling pronounced by this Authority is binding on the applicant, in respect of the transaction in relation to which the ruling has been sought and on the Commissioner and the income-tax authorities subordinate to him. The ruling is in respect of the applicant and the transaction involved.
Question No. 2 is whether even otherwise the transaction will stand outside section 45 of the Act in view of the section 47 (iv) of the Act. In the light of the Ruling on question No. 1, this question may have no efficacy. Counsel argued that an earlier Ruling rendered by this Authority In re RST (AAR No. 1067 of 2011) requires reconsideration.
According to the applicant, the merger and consequent transfer of all assets and liabilities did not generate any gain. The applicant was in involved circumstances. That is why the merger with the parent company was thought of. On a merger, the transfer or is effaced. The transaction undertaken is apparently one sanctioned by Swiss law. The gain if any in this case is not determinable within the scope of section 45 and section 48 of the Act as postulated in the Ruling in Dana Corporation (AAR No.788 of 2008). On a consideration of the facts obtaining in this case, I am of the view that no capital gain chargeable to tax under the Act in terms of section 45 read with section 48 can be said to arise.
