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 : Learn who can apply for an advance ruling, applicable fees, withdrawal rules, and its binding effect under the Income-tax Act. The...
Income Tax : The article explains who can apply for Advance Rulings, the transactions covered, applicable forms, fees, procedures, and appeal r...
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...
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 : Odisha AAR held CAMPA deposits for forest clearance are consideration for Government services, not exempt from GST, and taxable un...
Goods and Services Tax : Odisha AAR held that questions relating to refund of accumulated ITC under Section 54(3) are not maintainable under the advance ru...
Custom Duty : CAAR classified complete prosthetic joints as artificial joints and held the imported implants ineligible for exemption under Noti...
Custom Duty : CAAR held ITC (HS) code matching is not mandatory for DFIA imports if goods match DFIA description and satisfy Notification 25/202...
Custom Duty : CAAR ruled that matching ITC (HS) codes is unnecessary if imported goods match the DFIA description and comply with quantity and v...
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, ...
3. The applicant contends that the services under various contracts except contract no. 5 cannot be brought within the sweep of `royalties’ as defined in Art. XII.3 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (hereinafter referred to as `DTAA’ or `Treaty’), that there was no permanent establishment in India except in relation to Contract no.6 and that royalty income in respect of the contract no. 5
10.1 It is the common stand of both – the applicant and the Revenue, that the nature of income arising from the transfer of the applicant’s participating interest in Amguri block to the proposed partnership firm, shall be capital gains. Where they differ is regarding the mode of computation of that income. Whereas the applicant submits that sub-section( 3) of section 45 of the Act provides a particular mode
5. It would be appropriate to reproduce section 36(1)(viii) of the Act as it stood in the relevant assessment years i.e. A.Y.1997-98 in the following terms: – Section 36(1)(viii) : as it stood in the statute during the A.Y.(1997-98) 36(1) – The deductions provided for in the following clauses shall be allowed in respect of the matters dealt with therein, in computing the income referred to in section 28
Once the conclusion is reached that the application for advance ruling filed under section 245Q is hit by one or all of the embargoes laid down in the proviso to section 245R(2), the Authority has no option but to reject the application in limine; it is not open to the Authority to ignore the legal bar created by the proviso notwithstanding the discretion conferred on the Authority in apparently wide terms under the main provision i.e., sub-section (2).
8.5 The crucial question to be asked and answered is whether the applicant has paid any fee to HMFICL for the service of deputing its own employee having technical knowledge to work with the applicant for a specified period? Whether the part reimbursement of salary of secondee by the applicant shall be construed as consideration for rendering the service of the kind covered by FTS clause
12. The applicant has given the details of legal proceedings that preceded the transfer of shares starting from the filing of Company Petition No. 19/2007 and 133 of 2007 by the Indian Promoters and by the applicant respectively before the Company Law Board (CLB). These Company Petitions were filed under Section 397 and 398 of the Companies Act for relief against oppression of minority shareholders
Burmah Castrol vs. DIT Mumbai The applicant, Burmah Castrol Plc. is a non-resident company incorporated under the laws of England and Wales. The applicant submits that during the financial year 2001-02, as per the directive of SEBI, it acquired 12,77,292 equity shares of Foseco India Limited (hereinafter referred to as “FIL”), an Indian company, for an acquisition price of Rs. 221.86 per share and also as per those directives paid a further amount of Rs.49.1429per share for the delay in making the Open Offer.
Pooja Bhatt v. DCIT Income derived by the assessee-artist from the exercise of her activity in Canada is taxable only in source country i.e., Canada as per the scheme of taxation contained in the Indo-Canada Treaty; by using the expression “may be taxed in the other State” in Article 18(1) of the said Treaty, the contracting parties permitted only the other State i.e. State of income source and by implication, the State of residence was precluded from taxing such income.
The construction services used for construction of workers’ quarters within the factory premises, does not fall within the ambit of input services as defined in rule 2(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and consequently Applicant can not avail of the credit of such construction services in terms of rule 3 of the mentioned rules.
The Joint Venture can be treated as an association of persons (A.O.P.) in consonance with section 2(31)(v) read with the Explanation to section 2 of the Act and liable to be assessed as such under the Income-tax Act. All the partners of J.V. have joined in for common purpose on their own volition to produce income which is shared in certain ratio. The J.V. is to be taxed in the status of an association of persons @ 41% net basis.
