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 applicant is in the business of gathering, collating and making available or imparting information concerning industrial and commercial knowledge, experience and skill and consequently the payment received from the subscriber would be royalty in terms of clause (iv) of Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. If so, the subscription received is royalty liable to be taxed as such under the Act.
In Vodafone International Holdings BV Netherlands vs. Union of India and another (345 ITR 1 (SC). a three judge bench of the Supreme Court has laid down that what is needed is to consider the transaction in its entirety and to look at the transaction as a whole. The Supreme Court has advocated that a transaction must be looked at and not looked through.
As regards consultancy services, the question is whether such services are made available in the context of the DTAC between India and France read with the DTAC between India and US relied on by the applicant. It is seen that the advice and assistance rendered by the French Company to the applicant are not transient in nature and are capable of being used by the applicant on its own. It is true that some of the consultancy services rendered may not have that quality of permanency and may be a one time assistance, but advice on business strategy, on general management, on marketing and commercial matters,
the Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) in the case of Z (A.A.R. No.1048 of 2011) held that income from sale of Compulsory Convertible Debentures (CCDs) by the applicant is taxable in India as ‘Interest’ under Section 2(28A) of Income-tax Act,1961 (the Act) and Article 11 of India-Mauritius tax treaty (tax treaty). Further the AAR held that sale of Indian company shares by a Mauritius company is not exempt under the tax treaty.
AAR held that a consortium formed by the Applicant with another non-resident, to bid for a turnkey contract, is liable to be taxed as Association of Persons (AOP) according to the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and the Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (tax treaty) between India and Germany. The AAR also held that an internal division of responsibility between consortium members does not alter the formation of an AOP and indivisible nature of the contract.
he first question relates to taxability of amount received on release and relinquishment of tenancy rights, whereas, the second question relates to capital gains on sale of 596 shares and as such do not involve determination of fair market value. As regards the amount received on release of tenancy rights, the tenancy rights are in respect of real estate and would be gains derived from alienation of immovable property. As the immovable property is situated in India, the gains are taxable in India under Article 13.1 of the DTAA.
Centrica India Offshore Private Ltd., (AAR) – It was held that personnel seconded to the Taxpayer, a group company in India, did not become its employees in the absence of an obligation undertaken by the Taxpayer to pay employment costs of such personnel. This was held despite the fact that the Taxpayer exercised control and supervision and was also responsible for the work of the personnel.
XYZ Ltd. (AAR) – The payment received / receivable by the applicant in connection with IVTC Services are taxable as FTS under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. The exception provided under section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act is not available to the applicant. The payments received / receivable in connection with the cost incurred and recovery of administrative cost for and on behalf of X India are chargeable to tax as FTS under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act.
Capital gain on buy-back of shares is taxable under Section 46A of the Act in the hands foreign company – S. 46A, which provides that in the case of a buyback, the difference between the consideration and the cost of acquisition shall be deemed to be capital gains is a special provision and prevails s. 45. S. 47 overrides s. 45 but not s. 46A. There is no reason to enquire whether s. 46A is a charging section or not. The result is that even if the exemption in s. 47(iv) is held applicable, it does not override s. 46A and the applicant is subject to capital gains.
AAR held that the payment for mobilization and de-mobilization is related to use of equipment for undertaking installation work and taxable as royalty under Article 12(3)(b) of the India-Singapore tax treaty (tax treaty). Further as installation is ancillary and subsidiary to the use of equipment or enjoyment of the right for such use, the payment for installation is taxable as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under Article 1 2(4)(a) of the tax treaty. The AAR also held that the applicant has provided services or facilities in connection with the exploration, exploitation or extraction of mineral oils for more than 183 days during the Financial Year (FY). Therefore, the applicant has a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India under Article 5(5) of the tax treaty and covered by Section 44BB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act).
