To facilitate foreign investment into the country a number of steps have been taken by Government of India in the past. Setting up an Authority for Advance Rulings (Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax) to give binding rulings, in advance, on Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax matters pertaining to an investment venture in India is one such measure. The legal provisions of Advance Rulings were introduced through the Finance Acts of 1998, 1999 and 2003.
Income Tax : Only specified applicants such as non-residents, certain residents, and public sector companies can apply. The ruling clarifies ta...
Goods and Services Tax : The authority held that oxygen supply through installed infrastructure is a composite supply of goods. The key takeaway is that pr...
Income Tax : Understand when and how to file an advance ruling application under the Income-tax Act, 2025. The update clarifies eligibility, do...
Goods and Services Tax : Recent AAR rulings have raised questions on whether ITC on imports is subject to Section 16(4). While one ruling applies the time ...
Goods and Services Tax : The issue was whether foreign patent filing fees attract GST. The ruling confirms such payments are taxable as import of services ...
Income Tax : From October 2024, applicants can withdraw advance ruling requests pending with the Board for Advance Rulings by October 31. Final...
Income Tax : This handbook aims to provide general guidance on the scheme of Advance Rulings under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). I...
Income Tax : CBDT launches Boards for Advance Rulings in Delhi & Mumbai, providing tax clarity to investors and entities. Learn more about this...
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...
Goods and Services Tax : The Kerala AAR held that advance ruling applications cannot be based on hypothetical scenarios or academic questions. The Authorit...
Goods and Services Tax : The Kerala AAR held that medicines, consumables, room rent, and ancillary services provided during inpatient treatment form part o...
Goods and Services Tax : Kerala AAR held that used gunny bags sold after cattle feed manufacturing are reusable packing bags under HSN 6305 and not scrap. ...
Goods and Services Tax : The Kerala AAR rejected an advance ruling application after noting that the issue of GST applicability on member transactions had ...
Goods and Services Tax : The Authority ruled that the President and Members of the statutory temple board are not “directors” under GST notifications. ...
Goods and Services Tax : Explore the constitution & members of the Advance Ruling Authority under Maharashtra VAT Act 2002. Detailed analysis on its implic...
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...
Income Tax : CBDT notifies e-advance rulings (Amendment) Scheme, 2023 which amend e-advance rulings Scheme, 2022. Amendments are related to Boa...
Goods and Services Tax : The Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, has issued Notification No. 02/2023 – Union Territory Tax on May 25, 2023. T...
Income Tax : F No. 189/3/2022-ITA-I Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue (Central Board of Direct Taxes) North Block, ...
The Ministry of Finance has notified an “Advance Pricing Agreement Scheme” (Rules 10F to 10T of Income Tax Rules, 1962) vide notification No. 36/2012 dated 30-8-2012. The Finance Act, 2012 had inserted sections 92CC and 92CD in the Income Tax Act 1961 introducing the provisions of Advance Pricing Agreement (APA). The APA Scheme shall come into effect from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette, i.e. from 30.08.2012.
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.
Whether the applicant is required to file its return of income under section 139 of the Act, in case, its capital gains is not chargeable to tax in India is question no.6 posed. It has been found that though the applicant would be chargeable to capital gains tax on the proposed sale of shares under the Act, it has been ruled that in view of the benefit available to the applicant by the invocation of section 90(2) of the Act and the DTAC between the two countries, the authorities under the Act cannot tax the income in view of paragraph 4 of Article 13 of the DTAC.
Learned counsel for the Revenue argued that the beneficial ownership of the shares vested with Copal Jersey and that ownership should determine the applicatory law. India did not have a treaty with Jersey and hence on the application of the Income-tax Act, the capital gains are taxable in India. He pointed out that there was no dispute that the gains were taxable under the Act.
The argument that unless the capital gain is actually taxed in Mauritius the DTAC would not apply in the context of section 90(1) and section 90(2) of the Act, though attractive, cannot be entertained in view of the decision in Union of India vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan. Even though capital gain is not actually taxed in Mauritius, the question raised is seen to be concluded by the decision in Union of India vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan. If it wants to, it is for the revenue to canvass the question before the Supreme Court. This Authority is bound by that decision. Here, the assets proposed to be transferred come under paragraph 4 of Article 13 of the DTAC between India and Mauritius. The applicant being a tax resident of Mauritius in the light of the tax residency certificate produced by it, going by the decision in Union of India vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan, it has to be held that the gain that may arise to the applicant is not chargeable to tax in India.
Paragraph 8 of Article 5 of the DTAC provides that where an agent of an independent status to whom paragraph 9 does not apply, is acting in a Contracting State on behalf of an enterprise of the other contracting state, that enterprise shall be deemed to have a permanent establishment, notwithstanding paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 5, if it habitually exercise in that state an authority to conclude contracts on behalf of the enterprise or habitually secures orders in the first mentioned stage wholly or almost wholly for the enterprise itself or for the enterprise under the same common control.
(1) Whether, based on the facts and circumstances of the case, receipts by the Applicant as per the Contract for the overhauling services would be taxable as Fees for Technical Services in India under the Act? – (2) Whether the consideration receivable under the Contract would fall within the definition of Fees for included services under Article 12 of the Indo-US DTAA? Would the services make available any technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how, or processes, or consist of the development and transfer of a technical plan or technical design in terms of Indo-US DTAA?
Assessee was a tax resident of Singapore. The applicant sought a ruling on taxability of subscription fee received from users in India to access the online information database maintained by it. AAR was of the view that the market intelligence services provided by the applicant on online portal was taxable as Royalty as per Clause (iv) of Explanation 2 to Section 9(1) (vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 The same was also taxable as Royalty as per Article 12(2) of India -Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement.
On the terms of the agreement, it appears to us, that it is only an agreement to share the product of the Research and Development allegedly without payment of royalty, but paying a consideration for the use described as the contribution towards the costs of the researchincurred by that particular party. This payment occurs only on use of the product of the research and not otherwise. This payment can hence only be understood as a consideration for the use of the process or formula developed by that member. It would satisfy the definition of royalty under Explanation 2 to Section 9(1 )(vi) of the Act. The applicant is either the recipient of the consideration or the conduit through which the consideration is paid to the concerned party.
