Re -Ardex Investments Mauritius Ltd. (AAR) – Applicant was a tax resident of Mauritius and the Tax Residency Certificate produced in this behalf has to be accepted view of the decision in Azadi Bachao Andolan (263 ITR 706). The applicant, a company incorporated in Mauritius, was dealing with the shares it held in an Indian company and selling them to another company in Germany. Article 13 of the Treaty between India and Mauritius applied. According to paragraph 4 of the treaty, the capital gains derived by a resident of Mauritius from the alienation of shares would be taxable only in Mauritius and not in India in the absence of the applicant having a Permanent Establishment in India.
The applicant is a company incorporated under the laws of British Virgin Islands. It was previously known as ‘In touch Technologies Holdings Limited’, the predecessor of which in turn was ‘In Touch Technology Limited’. The applicant is engaged in the business of providing and enabling Electronic Payment Services via mobile and fixed line telecom and other telecom services networks. Over the years, the applicant has been conceiving, designing and developing Software Technology relating to payment processing platforms and services. In the year 1966, a new framework for an advanced intelligent processing platform was conceived of.
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.
