Court : Authority for Advance Rulings
Chairman 1. The applicant is a non-banking financial company incorporated in India. It makes investments in various businesses in India and abroad in the form of securities including shares, stocks and debentures. For the purpose of funding its business activities in India, the applicant proposes to borrow money from GECC Corporation of USA by issuing fully convertible Bonds under the foreign direct investments schemes. A Bond Subscription Agreement was, therefore, entered into between the applicant and GECC (referred to as investor). As per the Agreement, the Bonds (with the face value of Rs.10/- each) are convertible into equity shares at the end of 5 years from the date of the issue unless extended for a further period of 5 years in which case the conversion would take place at the end of 10 years. Applicant submits that by virtue of conversion there will be constructive payment of borrowed money to the Bondholder. The interest on the bonds is payable by the applicant in rupee curre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Authority for Advance Rulings
Reported in : (1996)220ITR377AAR
Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 245R(2); Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between Mauritius and India - Articles 4, 10, 11(3), 13 and 14 1. These are two applications under Section 245Q(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act").2. The applicants are limited liability companies incorporated in Mauritius on November 22, 1994. A certificate issued by the Income-tax Department of Mauritius has been produced which purports to be a "tax residence certificate" issued under the convention between the Government of the Republic of India and the Government of the Republic of Mauritius for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income and capital gains entered into in 1982. These certificates declare that the applicants are "qualified in terms of the aforesaid convention as resident in Mauritius".3. The memoranda as well as the articles of association of the two companies have been filed, which are identical in both cases. The objects of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Authority for Advance Rulings
Reported in : (1996)222ITR551AAR
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: N.A. Dalvi, B.S. Raut and S.H.Kapadia, Advs.1. This is an application under Section 245Q(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). The applicant was incorporated as a company at Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia on November 28, 1978. A certificate of residency in Malaysia from the Inland Revenue Department at Kuala Lumpur has also been produced. The memorandum of association of the company authorised it, inter alia, to carry on the following objects ; "(1) To engage and hire or otherwise procure mechanical, electrical, civil, professional, clerical, manual and other staff and workers and to allocate their services to any person, firm or company requiring the same and to establish and maintain an employment agency, (a) To provide or procure the provision by others of every and any service need want or requirement of any business nature required by any person, firm or company in or in connection with any business carried on by them." 2. On September 8, 1993,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Authority for Advance Rulings
Reported in : (1999)237ITR190AAR
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: B.K. Gupta, F.C.A. and Sandeep Malhotra, Adv.For Respondents/Defendant: R.K. Tanwar, Assistant Commissionr of Income-tax 1. This application under Section 245Q(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), raises a very interesting question for consideration.2. The applicant, "The Developing Countries Trade Agency", is a company incorporated in the United Kingdom on April 17, 1986. Its name was changed to the shorter form, "DECTA", on October 13, 1993. It is a nonresident company for the purposes of the Act. It had entered into memoranda of understanding with as many as forty-five Indian companies from time to time. Under these agreements, it received various amounts from these companies and the question on which the ruling of the Authority has been sought is in regard to the taxability of these amounts under the Act. The questions posed by the applicant are as follows : "(1) Whether the amount of contribution received/receivable to recover part of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Authority for Advance Rulings
Reported in : (2000)242ITR698AAR
Suhas C. Sen, J. (Chairman), Subhash C. Jain and Mohini Bhussry, Members 1. The applicant has applied for an advance ruling on the status under the Income-tax Act. He claims to be a technician entitled to the benefit of Section 10(5B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The applicant has stated his case in the following manner : "Even though for a technician to be entitled for the benefits envisaged under Section 10(5B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the person should apply his technical skill in the manufacturing process relating to business, in the opinion of the applicant, application of the necessary skills while providing customer service like commissioning, imparting of training and installation would fall within the purview as conceived in the section. Accordingly, in the event the Indian branch chooses to discharge the tax liability, necessary exemption under Section 10(5B) should be extended to the applicant." 2. The facts as stated by the applicant are that he is a Malaysian national...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Authority for Advance Rulings
Reported in : (2006)200CTRAAR245
Appellants: Google Online India Private Ltd. (GIPL) Vs.Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J. (Chairman), Somnath Pal and B.A. Agrawal, Members For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Atul Gupta, Consultant, Punit Bhardwaj and Amit Agarwal, Chartered Accountants for Deloitte Haskins & Sells For Respondents/Defendant: A.K. Roy, Joint CDR and Bipin Sapra, Jt.Commissioner Finance Act, 1994 - Sections 65, 65(2), 65(3), 65(19), 65(105), 96C(1) and 96C(2); Finance Act, 2001 Advertising Club v. CBEC, 2002 (121) Taxman 287 : 2001 (131) ELT 35 (Mad); ITPO v. CCE, 2004 (164) ELT 163; ICICI Bank v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, Classification Section 65(105)(e) of the Finance Act 1994 (Act) Whether activity of providing space for advertisement on google website can be classified under any heads of taxable services enumerated in chapter V of the Finance Act 1994 Proposed service satisfies requirements of advertisement service Hence, activity of providing space for advertisement on google websit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Authority for Advance Rulings
(By Mr. V.K.Shridhar) The applicant, D.B. Zwirn Mauritius Trading No. 3 Ltd. is a company incorporated in Mauritius and was issued a Tax Residence Certificate by the Mauritius Tax Authorities. It is engaged in the business of investments in different sectors. The applicant held 5,33,333 equity shares of Quippo Telecom Infrastructure Limited, an Indian company. These were acquired on 19th September, 2007, for a consideration of Rs.2,13,33,320. On 10th November, 2009, the applicant entered into a share purchase agreement to sell these 5,33,333 shares to Geraldton Finance Limited, a Mauritius based company, for a consideration of Rs.5,59.99,965. The applicant realized capital gain of Rs.2,98.67.010. 2. The Applicant has approached this Authority to determine whether by virtue of being a Mauritius resident, it is eligible to the benefits of the India-Mauritius DTAA and hence not subject to tax in India on the capital gains realized. It has sought the ruling of this Authority on the followi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Authority for Advance Rulings
Justice Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri The following common question is set forth in these four applications, under section 245Q(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act):- Whether in respect of the transaction, being the reorganization described in Annexure 2 of this application, the applicant is chargeable to tax in India under the provisions of the Income tax Act, 1961 or the agreement for avoidance of double taxation between India and the United Kingdom. 2. In as much as the said common question arises out of identical facts, we shall refer to the facts narrated in the first mentioned application (AAR/647/2004). The applicant is a limited company incorporated in Great Britain and is a tax resident of the United Kingdom(U.K). The applicant was initially a trustee for a group of funds including Invesco Perpetual Global Smaller Companies Fund (Invesco Funds). Those funds were managed by Invesco Funds Managers Ltd., a company incorporated in Great Britain and a tax resident of U.K....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Authority for Advance Rulings
A. Sinha, J. These two applications have been filed by the Airports Authority of India (for short AAI), which has been established under the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994. The applicant is a public sector undertaking, but has filed these applications in the capacity as a resident, seeking ruling on the tax liability of a non-resident US company, namely, Raytheon Company (for short RC) with which it has entered into two separate contracts. Under these contracts, RC will provide software documentation, software, hardware, installation, testing, training, etc., to the applicant. 2. Application No. AAR/755/2007 involves supply and testing of Surveillance Situation Display Data (S-SDD). The applicant has sought advance ruling of the Authority on the following questions:-. (i) Whether payment received by M/s Raytheon Company under the transaction mentioned in Annexure I is liable to tax in India in the hands of the recipient non-resident US Company? (ii) If the answer to question No...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Authority for Advance Rulings
Reported in : (1999)238ITR99AAR
1. This application, made under Section 245Q(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), raises an interesting question regarding the taxability of certain amounts of royalty paid outside India under certain agreements between two groups of companies. On the one side is a Swedish company which can be conveniently described as "A" and its wholly owned subsidiary known as "B" incorporated in the United States of America. On the other side is "C" incorporated in the United States of America, its wholly owned subsidiary known as "CM" and an Indian company, "IC" in which "CM" holds 51 per cent. of the equity capital.As a result of these agreements, "B" has received and "C" has paid to "B", a one-time royalty of US $ 5,295,756. The question on which "B" seeks the ruling of this authority is : "Whether the royalty paid outside India amounting to US$ 5,295,756 by 'C' to 'B' as a consideration for granting the licence and right to 'IC', a company in which 'CM' has 51 per cent. equity holding, ...
Tag this Judgment!