Merely coming together and acting in cooperation with each other for the purpose of executing the work while each member carries on its own scope of work independently does not reasonably lead to the conclusion that an AOP has been formed.
Under the specific facts of the case, customization of standardized software specific to client specifications was held to be “fees for included services” as the software developer made available technical knowledge, experience or skill to the client to enable client personnel to operate the software system themselves.
The applicant is a company incorporated in Japan and is engaged in the business of providing „Products Lifecycle Management? software solutions, applications and services. These software products are standardized and not customized or tailor-made. It markets its products in India through a distribution channel of third party resellers comprising Value Added Resellers („VAR?) who resells the software to end-users.
Prudential Assurance Company Ltd. (Prudential) is a foreign company incorporated in United Kingdom and is engaged in the business of Insurance. Prudential registered with the Securities and Exchange Board of India as a sub-account of a Foreign Institutional Investor (FII).
The payments received by the Applicant from the Indian hotel owner for provision of global reservation services (‘GRS’) would be chargeable to tax in India under section 9(1)(i) read with Articles 5 and 7 of the India-Luxembourg DTAA as business income and is attributable to the Applicant’s permanent establishment in India.
Recently, the Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) in the case of Laird Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. [2010-TIOL-06-ARA-IT] has held that the fees received by the USA company for assigning contractual rights to the applicant for supply of products in India is taxable as business profits and in the absence of a Permanent Establishment (PE) such consideration is not taxable in India under the India-USA tax treaty (the tax treaty). Accordingly,
Recently, the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) in the case of M/s Amiantit International Holding Ltd. [2010-TIOL-07-ARA-IT] held that the capital gains is taxable only when the applicant derive any profit or gain in the form of money or money’s worth or which is capable of being turned into money has accrued or arisen to the applicant.
AAR held that income received by a foreign company for procurement support services rendered by its Indian office in connection with purchase operations undertaken by other foreign company in India, is taxable in India.
Recently Bombay high court in the case of The Prudential Assurance Company Ltd. (Taxpayer) [AIT-2010-170-HC] on the binding nature of a ruling pronounced by the Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR), reiterated the relevant provisions of the Indian Tax Laws (ITL) and held that an AAR ruling is binding on a taxpayer and the Tax Authority, in relation to the transaction in respect of which the AAR ruling was sought.
This Tax Alert summarizes a recent ruling of the Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) [A.A.R. No. 797 of 2009] in the case of M/s Umicore Finance Luxembourg (Applicant). There was a sale of shares of a company by its shareholders which had received such shares on conversion of a firm into the company, under the provisions of Part IX of the Indian Company Law (ICL).
