We have a case where the equipment is purchased or taken on lease by the applicant. It is proposed to be granted on a lease for a short term (in fact, on behalf of the petitioner it is submitted that it was proposed to grant a lease for two years only). The lease amount or rent is to bear only a small proportion to the cost of the equipment.
VNU International B. V., AAR No. 871 of 2010, order dated 28 March 2011- Whether capital gains earned by the applicant on transfer of shares of the Indian company would be liable to tax in India as per the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟) and the Tax Treaty between India and The Netherlands? If the capital gain is not taxable in India, whether the applicant is required to file any return of income under section 139 of the Act? Whether the transfer of shares by the applicant would attract transfer pricing provisions under sections 92 to 92F of the Act? Whether the purchasers were liable to withhold tax at source under section 195 of the Act and if so, on what amount should the tax have been deducted?
Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) in the case of D.B.Zwirn Mauritius (AAR No. 879 of 2011) (Judgment date: 28 March 2011) dealt with the issue of taxability of capital gains on sale of shares by a Mauritian entity under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) or India-Mauritius tax treaty (the tax treaty). The AAR held that the applicant, holding tax residence certificate, was eligible for the tax treaty benefits. Accordingly, under Article 13(4) of the tax treaty the taxpayer is not liable to pay capital gains tax in India in respect of the transfer of shares held in an Indian company.
Authority for Advance Rulings has rendered an important ruling in the case of Transworld Garnet Company Ltd. dealing with the issue of whether or not the non-availability of the indexation benefit under the provisions Second proviso to section 48 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to non-residents amounts to discrimination under the India-Canada Double Tax Avoidance Agreement . After considering the various provisions of the Act and Article 24 of the tax treaty, the AAR held that the denial of indexation benefits to the applicant does not amount to discriminatory treatment under the tax treaty.
Dissemination of informations, furnishing guidelines and suggesting plans of action aimed at uniformity and seamless quality in business dealings of participating group entities do not per se amount to making available to them technical knowledge and experience possessed by EMEIA to a substantial extent; There is no transfer of technical know-how in that pro
Where the agreement was executed outside India and the delivery of the vessel also took place outside India, by reason of the mere presence of the vessel in India without the volition of Vessel Providing Companies, the source of income cannot be said to be located in India
The transfer of equity shares in Indian company would not be regarded as transfer within the meaning of section 45 read with section 47(iv) of the Income-tax Act and hence the gains if any arising on transfer would not be taxable in India The applicant has no liability to pay capital gains tax under section 45 and minimum alternate tax under section 115JB of the Ac
As the applicant does not have any physical presence in India in the form of an office or branch or a PE, the provisions of section 115JB are not applicable on the sale of shares of a listed company by the applicant, which has suffered securities transaction tax and accordingly, tax exempt under section 10(38)
Providing comments and suggestions after reviewing the strategies and plans developed by the applicant, giving suggestions to the applicant to improve the product developed by it so as to bring it in line with the common practices followed by other AXA entities across the globe, providing HR support assistance, assisting the applicant in choosing cost effective re-insurance partners, reviewing the actuarial methodologies developed by the applicant and providing suggestions and inputs to achieve standard actuarial practices and processing guidelines in connection with the settlement of claims, marketing and risk analysis, fall short of the requirements laid down in the definition of fees for technical services in Tax Treaty between India and Singapore
Authority for Advanced Ruling (AAR) held that payment for procurement of support services vis-a-vis business, marketing, information technology and strategy from foreign affiliate company are not Fees for Technical Services (FTS) and royalty within the meaning of Article 12 of the India-Singapore tax treaty (tax treaty).
