Court : Authority for Advance Rulings
Reported in : (2004)267ITR727AAR
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J. (Chairman), K.D. Singh and K.D. Gupta, Members Raghava Reddi v. CIT, [1962] 44 ITR 720; CIT v. Toshoku Ltd., [1980] 125 ITR 525; Standard Triumph Motor Co. Ltd. v. CIT, [1993] 201 ITR 391 Advance rulings--Deduction of tax at source under section 195(1)Royalty/fee for technical services The Indian resident company entered into two separate agreements, one with Sweden company and other with in Swiss federation for providing technical services in consideration of royalties for former and fees for latter. The issue arise being deduction of tax at source. The applicant credits the amount in foreign companies account on receiving bills. The Indian company is required to deduct tax at source under section 195(1) from amount credited to non-resident companies on royalties and fees for providing technical service because same is chargeable to tax in India in view of article 12 of DTAA between Sweden and Swiss Federation with India.The Indian company is required to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Authority for Advance Rulings
Justice Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri In these two applications, M/s. Flakt (India) Limited is the applicant and the Commissioner of Income-tax-I, Chennai is the jurisdictional Commissioner. The applicant which is a resident company having its registered office in Poonamallee High Road, Village Numbai, Chennai-600 077, is a member of Flakt Woods Group of Companies - a worldwide group of companies - (for short the Flakt group) . M/s. Flakt Woods AB incorporated in Sweden and a tax resident of Sweden, (hereinafter referred to as the Sweden company) and M/s. Flakt Woods Group AG incorporated in Switzerland and a tax resident of Switzerland,(hereinafter referred to as the Swiss company), are also members of the Flakt group. The first application relates to Sweden company and the second application relates to Swiss company, 2. The following are the facts common to these applications. The applicant entered into two separate agreements in respect of IP Licence and Fee Agreement and Trademark Lice...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Authority for Advance Rulings
Reported in : (2004)189CTRAAR500
Appellants: In Re: Uranium Corporation of India Ltd. Vs.Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J. (Chairman), K.D. Singh and K.D. Gupta, Members Advance rulings--Withdrawal of applicationClearance from Committee on Dispute (COD) not obtained The application of applicant is permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to the applicant to approach this authority in the event the COD permits it to approach this authority for Advance Ruling.The application of applicant is permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to the applicant to approach this authority in the event the COD permits it to approach this authority for Advance Ruling.Advance rulings--Withdrawal of applicationClearance from Committee on Dispute (COD) not obtained The application of applicant is permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to the applicant to approach this authority in the event the COD permits it to approach this authority for Advance Ruling.The application of applicant is permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to the applicant to ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Authority for Advance Rulings
Reported in : (2004)267ITR722AAR
Appellants: In Re: Norasia Container Lines Ltd. Vs.Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J. (Chairman), K.D. Singh and K.D. Gupta, Members Advance rulings--Non-resident shipping companyIncome from freight earned in India from shipping business of operating merchandise vessels in international waters The applicant, a company incorporated and registered in Malta, being a resident in Malta and also assessed to tax in Malta on a world wide income basis, will not be subject to tax in India on its freight income earned in India from shipping business of operating merchandise vessels in international waters because the applicant would fall within the meaning of the expression "enterprise of a contracting State". Thus, it follows that the profits from the operation of ships or air-craft in international traffic shall be taxable only in Malta in view of article 8 of DTAA.The applicant, a company incorporated and registered in Malta, being a resident in Malta and also assessed to tax in Malta on a world w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Authority for Advance Rulings
Justice Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J. In this case, the applicant filed application under section 245R(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 seeking advance ruling on the following question: Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the amount received from Cyprus US by the applicant who was earlier in the employment of Arcus India for giving up claims if any is not to be regarded as income either under the head salaries or any other head of income? 2. On March 12, 2004 this Authority passed order asking the applicant to explain as to why the application should not be rejected in view of the amended provisions in clause (ii) of clause (a) of section 245N of the Income-tax Act. 3. Following the ruling just now pronounced in the case of M/s. Hindustan Power Plus Ltd., Chennai, in Application No. AAR/561/2002, this application is also rejected. Pronounced by the Authority in the presence of the parties on this 7th day of April, 2004....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Authority for Advance Rulings
Reported in : (2004)(167)ELT28AAR
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J. (Chairman), K.N. Chaturvedi and Somnath Pal, Members For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: V. Lakshmikumaran, R. Parthasarthy, Advs. and Puneet Gupta, Sr. Engineer For Respondents/Defendant: P.K. Haldar, Deputy Commissioner, Sanjay Sharma and R.K. Jindal, AppraisersDunlop India Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors., 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1566 (S.C.), 1976 (2) SCC 241; Hico Products Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, 1994 (71) E.L.T. 339 (S.C.); Bombay Chemical Pvt. Ltd. v.Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, 1995 (77) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.); Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur,H.M.M. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi,Pappu Sweets and Biscuits and Anr. v. Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow, 1998 (7) SCC 228 1. The applicant, M/s. Sony (India) Private Limited, filed this application under Section 28H of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short "the Act") seeking advance ruling of the authority on the following question...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Authority for Advance Rulings
Reported in : (2004)(93)ECC337
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J. (Chairman), K.N. Chaturvedi and Somnath Pal, Members For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: V. Laxmikumaran, R. Parthasarthy, Advs. and Puneet Gupta, Sr. Engineer For Respondents/Defendant: P.K. Haldar, Deputy Commissioner, Sanjay Sharma and R.K. Jindal, Advs.Dunlop India Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors., 1976 (2) SCC 241; Hico Products Ltd. v. Collector of. Central Excise, 1994 (47) ECC 63 (SC), 1994 (71) ELT 339 (SC); Bombay Chemical Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay,Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur, 1995 (50) ECC 167 (SC), 1995 (77) ELT 474 (SC); H.M.M. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi, 1995 (51) ECC 94 (SC), 1996 (87) ELT 593 (SC); Pappu Sweets and Biscuits and Anr. v. Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow, 1. The applicant, M/s. Sony (India) Private Limited, filed this application under Section 28H of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short "the Act") seeking advance ruling of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Authority for Advance Rulings
Reported in : (2004)267ITR685AAR
Appellants: In Re: Hindustan Powerplus Ltd. Vs.Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J. (Chairman), K.D. Singh and K.D. Gupta, Members Advance rulings--Taxability of a residentEffect of retrospective amendment made by the Finance Act, 2003, with effect from 1-6-2000 to section 245N(a)(ii) After amendment of section 245N(a)(ii) by the Finance Act, 2003 retrospectively the taxability of a resident cannot be made subject matter of Advance Ruling.After amendment of section 245N(a)(ii) by the Finance Act, 2003 retrospectively the taxability of a resident cannot be made subject matter of Advance Ruling.A comparison of the provision before the amendment and after the amendment shows that whereas before the amendment a determination by the Authority in relation to a transaction which has been undertaken or is proposed to be undertaken by a resident applicant with a non-resident, was within the meaning of the expression "advance ruling", after the amendment a determination should relate to taxability of ...
Tag this Judgment!