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 : Scenario-wise analysis of GST on business canteen services covering ITC, employee recovery, contractor supply, and statutory oblig...
Goods and Services Tax : The ruling examines the composition of lime products and holds that impurities of 10–15% place them under Heading 2522. The Auth...
Goods and Services Tax : Gujarat AAAR rules ITC from one business can offset GST on unrelated output supplies under a single registration, emphasizing fung...
Goods and Services Tax : जीएसटी के तहत एडवांस रूलिंग (AAR) की प्रक्रिया, प्रा...
CA, CS, CMA : Stay informed on India's latest regulatory changes from June 16-22, 2025. This summary covers Income Tax exemptions, GST amendment...
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 declined to entertain an advance ruling application on roasted areca nut classification after finding that the issue had alre...
Goods and Services Tax : Karnataka AAR disposed of the application after the applicant informed that GST demand orders on the same issue were already under...
Goods and Services Tax : Karnataka AAR disposed of the application after observing that a request for extension of the ITC availment deadline did not fall ...
Goods and Services Tax : The authority clarified that ITC cannot be claimed on amounts recovered from employees toward canteen facilities. Credit is restri...
Goods and Services Tax : The Gujarat AAR held that Psyllium (Isabgol) Seeds procured from farmers and supplied without drying, freezing, or processing qual...
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...
Explore the GST jurisdiction ruling for Fichtner Consulting Engineers in Tamil Nadu. Understand IGST, CGST, and SGST implications for inter-state supply.
The Authority for Advance Rulings in the case of Steria (India) Limited: AAR No. 1055/2011, while concluding the fact as to whether payment made by Steria (India) Ltd. to Groupe Steria, France for management services constitutes fees for technical services exigible to withholding of tax under section 195 of the Income-tax, Act, 1961
In the context of the residential status of a person employed outside India, the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has recently pronounced a decision in the case of Smita Anand (A.A.R. No.1091 of 2011 Dated 19.02.2014) which provides important learnings for employees wanting to settle back in India.
AAR held that various factors have to be taken into account to decide a Fixed place PE which inter alia includes a right of disposal over the premises. No strait jacket formula applicable to all cases can be laid down.
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.
The services rendered by the applicant are technical in nature and do not fall within the exception provided in the definition of FTS since the applicant has not actually carried out any mining or like project. It can at best be said that the services were rendered “in connection with” the mining activity undertaken by the Indian Companies. The applicant cannot be taxed under section 44BB since it had merely contracted to render some prospecting services through a sub-contractor in India.
In present case the applicant just has the right to terminate the secondment agreement, hence, the amount paid by Indian WOS to foreign parent under the secondment agreement is not mere reimbursement and is income of the parent company. Therefore, the applicant is liable to withhold taxes from payments made to foreign parent company.
In the context of section 47(i) and (iii), this gift referred to therein, is a gift by an individual or a Joint Hindu Family or a Human Agency. Section 47(iii) speaks of ‘any transfer of a capital asset under a gift, or will or an irrecoverable trust’. Execution of a will involves a human agency. Cannot the expression gift take its colour from a will with which it is juxtaposed, especially in the background of clause (i) of section 47 and clause (ii) which earlier existed.
