Full Judgment
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J. (Chairman), K.D. Singh and K.D. Gupta, Members Advance rulings--MAINTAINABILITY OF APPLICATIONIncome of industiral undertaking in free trade zone--Income of wholly owned Indian subsidiary The applicant, is a non-resident company in France, has a wholly owned Indian subsidiary having its factory at Bangalore. The Indian company has been manufacturing various types of electronic connectors from 1997. It is stated that during the year ended 2002, the Indian company has been allowed to set up a hardware technology park and the existing factory has been bonded by the Customs. The applicant applied for advance ruling in respect of chargeability of income of subsidiary company from hardware technology park. The application is not maintainable because the non-resident company has sought an advance ruling on the tax liability of the Indian company, which is not permissible under section 245N.The application is not maintainable because the non-resident company has sought an advance ruling on the tax liability of the Indian company, which is not permissible under section 245N.As per section 245N(a)(i) an advance ruling means a determination by the authority in relation to a transaction undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by a non-resident applicant. In the instant case, the applicant is neither a non-resident nor does the transaction relate to taxability of the applicant as a transaction by a non-resident.
Therefore, the question seeking advance ruling does not fall within the purview of a case in which an advance ruling can be sought. The authority is in agreement with the Jurisdictional Commissioner that the tax exemption of the Indian subsidiary is not a consequence of the transaction undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the non-resident applicant. The application is, therefore, not maintainable and is hereby rejected.
Advance rulings--MAINTAINABILITY OF APPLICATIONIncome of industiral undertaking in free trade zone--Income of wholly owned Indian subsidiary The applicant, is a non-resident company in France, has a wholly owned Indian subsidiary having its factory at Bangalore. The Indian company has been manufacturing various types of electronic connectors from 1997. It is stated that during the year ended 2002, the Indian company has been allowed to set up a hardware technology park and the existing factory has been bonded by the Customs. The applicant applied for advance ruling in respect of chargeability of income of subsidiary company from hardware technology park. The application is not maintainable because the non-resident company has sought an advance ruling on the tax liability of the Indian company, which is not permissible under section 245N.The application is not maintainable because the non-resident company has sought an advance ruling on the tax liability of the Indian company, which is not permissible under section 245N.As per section 245N(a)(i) an advance ruling means a determination by the authority in relation to a transaction undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by a non-resident applicant. In the instant case, the applicant is neither a non-resident nor does the transaction relate to taxability of the applicant as a transaction by a non-resident.
Therefore, the question seeking advance ruling does not fall within the purview of a case in which an advance ruling can be sought. The authority is in agreement with the Jurisdictional Commissioner that the tax exemption of the Indian subsidiary is not a consequence of the transaction undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the non-resident applicant. The application is, therefore, not maintainable and is hereby rejected.
1. The applicant, M/s. Connecteurs Cinch, S. A., a non-resident company in France, has a wholly owned Indian subsidiary--M/s. Cinch Connecteurs (India) Pvt, Ltd., having its factory at Whitefield Industrial Area, Bangalore. The Indian company has been manufacturing various types of electronic connectors from 1997. It is stated that during the year ended 2002, the Indian company has been allowed to set up a hardware technology park and the existing factory has been bonded by the Customs.
2. The applicant states that since it intends to make a substantial investment in the unit, it has sought ruling from the Authority, whether the Indian subsidiary would be entitled to tax exemption under Section 10A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the period from March 18, 2002, to March 31, 2010 or at least up to March 18, 2009.
3. The jurisdictional Commissioner has pleaded that the application is not maintainable because the non-resident company has sought an advance ruling on the tax liability of the Indian company, which is not permissible under Section 245N of the Act.
4. As per Section 245N(a)(i) of the Act an advance ruling means a determination by the Authority in relation to a transaction undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by a non-resident applicant. In the instant case, the applicant is neither a non-resident nor does the transaction relate to taxability of the applicant as a transaction by a non-resident. Therefore, the question seeking advance ruling does not fall within the purview of a case in which an advance ruling can be sought.
5. We are in agreement with the jurisdictional Commissioner that the tax exemption of the Indian subsidiary is not a consequence of the transaction undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the non-resident applicant. The application is, therefore, not maintainable and is hereby rejected.