Ruling passed by Authority for Advance Rulings Customs , Central Excise & Service Tax. The Authority for Advance Rulings consists of a Chairman who is a retired Judge of the Supreme court and two members of the rank of Additional Secretary to the Government of India, one each from the Indian Revenue Service and the Indian Legal Service.
Goods and Services Tax : Explore critical GST case laws from July 2024, including SCN issuance, personal hearing rights, appeal delays, and more. Essential...
Goods and Services Tax : Discover if penalties for contract breaches are subject to GST as ruled by AP-AAR. Learn how liquidated damages impact tax liabili...
Goods and Services Tax : 1. INTRODUCTION: ADVANCE RULING MECHANISM IN GST 1.1 The Advance Ruling is issued by tax authorities to companies/firms who reques...
Goods and Services Tax : Gujarat AAR rules nominal deductions from employee salaries for canteen services are not a supply of services, allowing ITC claims...
Goods and Services Tax : Explore critical GST rulings impacting taxpayers: validity of assessment orders, denial of ITC, electronic credit ledger blocking,...
Goods and Services Tax : New functionality to search for GST Advance Ruling Orders issued by Authority / Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling on GST Por...
Goods and Services Tax : Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) constituted under the provisions of a SGST/ UTGST Act, in terms of the provisions of Section 96...
Custom Duty : CAAR Mumbai rules on the classification of Dual Mass Flywheel under Customs Tariff Act, addressing its role in vehicle driveline s...
Custom Duty : CAAR clarifies AC parts classification: SKD imports together as complete units; separate imports as parts under CTH 84159000. Cruc...
Custom Duty : CAAR Mumbai's ruling on Dexolac 2 import, clarifying regional value content and tariff change criteria under ASEAN trade rules....
Goods and Services Tax : The activity of transfer of title of goods stored in FTWZ Unit by applicant to its customers in Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) or mult...
Goods and Services Tax : AAR Tamil Nadu denies rectification request for Mitsubishi Electric's GST ruling, confirming no errors in the original decision on...
Goods and Services Tax : Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Authority makes changes in its lineup, appointing Shri. Ajaykumar Vaman Bonde as a member of Ad...
Goods and Services Tax : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan has been appointed as member of Maharashtra Advance Ruling Authority in the place of Mr. Rajiv Magoo. FINANCE DEP...
Goods and Services Tax : Governor of Himachal Pradesh, in supersession of this department’s notification of even No. dated 14.09.2020, published in the e...
Goods and Services Tax : Governor of Delhi under Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is pleased to reconstitute the Delhi Authority for Advance Ruling...
Goods and Services Tax : Shri. Rajiv Magoo, Joint Commissioner of Central Tax has been appointed as member of Maharashtra GST Advance Ruling Committee in t...
In our order in AAR No.1009 of 2010 (SEPCO III Electric Power Corporation), we had taken the view that if the applicant before this Authority had already filed a return of income involving the amount arising out of the identical transaction on which a question for our ruling is raised by filing an application under section 245Q(1) of the Income-tax Act, the application before the Authority for Advance Rulings will be barred by the clause (i) of the proviso to section 245R(2) of the Act and the application will have to be rejected. On an application made by the applicant therein before this Authority to review or reconsider the correctness of that view, after considering the relevant aspects pointed out, this Authority again reiterated its view. The correctness of this view so taken is again sought to be canvassed in this Application and the other Applications heard along with it containing similar fact situation.
In re Citrix Systems Asia Pacific Pty. Ltd.(AAR) – We find from the decision of the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. M/s. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd (ITA No. 2808 of 2005) and connected cases that that High Court has held that in that case, the argument that it would be only a sale of copy of the copyright software could not be accepted.
In Re Shell Technology India Private Limited (AAR)- It cannot be denied that the Applicant receives services in the form of general finance advice, Taxation advice, legal advice, advice on Information Technology, media advice, assistance in contract and procurement and assistance in Marketing. It is trite that these advisory services would be consultancy services if the element of expertise or special knowledge on the part of the consultant is established. In the facts of the case before us, SIPCL, the consultant in the present case, is in the business of providing advice and services to various Shell Operating companies.
In Re SEPCO III Electric Power Construction (AAR)- The applicant is a company incorporated under the laws of China on 26.3.2009. The applicant, among other things, is a supplier of equipments for Electric Power Projects. On 26.3.2009, the applicant entered into a contract with M/s Jhajjar Power Limited, for supplying of equipments for the Haryana Power Project.
CTCI Overseas Corporation Ltd. In Re (AAR)- In the present case, though the applicant has a business connection in India, it has not carried out any part of the business relating to offshore supplies in India. Under the deeming provision of section 9(1) read with Explanation 1(a), any business income accruing or arising to the applicant can be taxed in India only in respect of such operations carried out in India.
In Re Foster Wheeler France SA (AAR)- Just like our considering the date of hearing of the application under section 245R of the Act would make for uncertainty, the fixing of the date of notice under section 143(2) / 142(1) of the Act by the income-tax authority as the starting point, would result in vagaries and to the use of different yardsticks to different applicants, it would depend on the diligence or non-diligence of the Assessing Officer, whether he had issued the notice before or after the application before this Authority has been filed and the nature of the notice.
In Re WaveField Inseis ASA (AAR) When this Authority took the view in Monte Harris and other cases that the date of the filing of the application before the Authority should be the crucial date for determining the question of the applicability of clause (i) of the proviso to section 245R(2) of the Act and not the date when the application comes up for hearing either under section 245R(2) or under section 245R(4) of the Act,
In Re Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. (AAR) – Since the question whether the payment made under the transaction was chargeable to tax under the Act was pending before the authorities under the Act arising out of an assessment against ASE, before the applicant approached this Authority the allowing of this application under Section 245R(2) of the Act is barred. The bar is in entertaining an application where the question raised in the application is already pending before any income-tax authority. Since we have found that the question arising before us, the primary question, if not the only question, is whether the payment to be made by the applicant to ASE on the transaction(s) is chargeable under the Act is already pending in proceedings against the payee, ASE, entertainment of the present application is barred by clause (i) of the proviso to Section 245R(2) of the Act. We, therefore, reject the application.
In Re Shell Technology India Private Limited (AAR) – The applicant is said to be providing scientific and technical services to Overseas Shell group entities. SSSABV, a company incorporated in Netherlands, through its branch in the Philippines, is currently providing back office financial services relating to accounts etc. to the applicant. It is seen that software are installed for that purpose; but it has not been clarified whether they are installed in India or in the Philippines. It appears to us that this aspect may not matter, as the software is used by the Philippines branch of SSSABV for rendering the services to the applicant and not by the applicant itself,
In Re Groupe Industrial Marcel Dassault (AAR)- It is true that a Double Taxation Avoidance Convention has to be construed on its terms. On a literal construction paragraph 5 would lead to the position that the transfer of shares of ShanH in this case, can be taxed only in France. But the contention of the Revenue is that the situs of the underlying assets cannot be ignored and the underlying assets and controlling interest are that of a company incorporated in India and a resident of India.
