Court : Authority for Advance Rulings
Justice Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri This application, under section 245Q(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act), is by a non-resident company, incorporated in and a tax resident of Japan. The applicant along with five other enterprises formed a consortium which was awarded by Petronet LNG Limited (for short the Petronet) a contract of turnkey project for setting up Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) receiving, storage and regasification facility at Dahej, Gujarat. The contract specified the role and responsibility of each member of the consortium and the consideration to be paid separately for the respective work of each member. The project work which fell to the share of the applicant involves to develop, design, engineer, procure equipment materials and supplies; to erect, construct storage tanks of a 5 MMTPA capacity with potential expansion to a 10 MMTPA capacity at the specified temperatures (-200 degrees Celsius) including marine facilities (jetty and island break water) for t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Authority for Advance Rulings
By Honble Chairman This is an application for advance ruling filed under section 245Q of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ( for short the Act) coming up for orders on the point of admission under section 245R(2) of the Act. The following facts are stated by the applicant: 2. The applicant is a company incorporated in Singapore and it is a wholly owned subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation (MS Co) having its headquarters in USA. It entered into a license agreement with Gracemac Corporation (Gracemac) which is also a wholly owned subsidiary of MS Co on 1.1.1999 under which the applicant was granted non-exclusive license to manufacture, reproduce and distribute Microsoft products in Asia including India. In pursuance of the said agreement, the applicant had appointed Microsoft Regional Sales Corporation (MRSC) as the distributor of Microsoft products. MRSC, in turn, entered into agreements with the Indian distributors for the sale of the said products in India. 2.1 Gracemac merged with MOL Corporat...
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 : (2005)198CTRAAR195
Indian Companies Act, 1956; Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 5(2), 9 and 245Q(1); Finance Act, 2005 - Sections 7, 9, 9(1) and 195 Income deemed to accrue or arise in India--FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICESServicesThe applicant is the owner of mines. It is engaged in prospecting and extraction of minerals, metals, ores, etc. It is carrying on business of exporting minerals. For the purpose of its business, the applicant gets the analysis of samples and ores conducted from technical lab of the consultant-Met-Chem, Canada Inc. Under the agreement between the applicant and the consultant, the material required to be analyzed and tested in the laboratory in Canada in respect of specific contents has to be sent to the consultant who will send reports to the applicant from time-to-time. For technical services rendered outside India the consultant s lab fees were required to be paid by the applicant in dollars in Canada. Fee is paid by the applicant, to the consultant for rendering of technical con...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Authority for Advance Rulings
o Advance Ruling --Double taxation relief Agreement between India and Norway --Applicant received salary income in India in Indian rupees from employers in India for service rendered by him in Norway for a period exceeding 182 days during the financial year. He filed an application under Section 245Q stating that he was deputed on official duty to Norway by his employer Infosys Technology Ltd., and he worked there for more than 182 days and he was therefore a non-resident for tax purposes and thus the salay paid by Infosys Technology Ltd. to a non-resident employee for rendering services outside India was not taxable in India in view of the DTAA between India and Norway and, therefore, he was not legally liable to pay the tax. Held: An analysis of article 16(1) of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Norway makes it clear that unless employment is exercised in the other Contracting State, the remuneration derived shall be taxable only in the State of residence. Howeve...
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!Court : Authority for Advance Rulings
Justice Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri The applicant, a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, and a tax resident of India, filed this application under section 245Q(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act). The applicant is the owner of mines. It is engaged in prospecting and extraction of minerals, metals, ores, etc. It is carrying on business of exporting minerals. For the purpose of its business, the applicant gets the analysis of samples and ores conducted from technical lab of the consultant - Met-Chem, Canada Inc.. Under the agreement between the applicant and the consultant the material required to be analyzed and tested in the laboratory in Canada in respect of specific contents has to be sent to the consultant who will send reports to the applicant from time to time. For technical services rendered outside India the consultant and the lab fees are required to be paid by the applicant in dollars in Canada. However, the technical consultants will also vis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Authority for Advance Rulings
Honble Chairman 1. The applicant which is an Indian Company and is engaged in the business of manufacture and supply of industrial pesticides has filed this application for advance ruling seeking determination of the non-residents tax liability under the Income-tax Act in connection with the proposed transactions with the non-resident Company by name Zaikog Trading Co. Zaikog Trading Co. (hereafter referred to as Zaikog) is a company incorporated in the Republic of South Africa and it is in the business of promotion and distribution of various products. Zaikog has offered its services to promote and market the product known as Imida Chloprid formulation for termite control. For the services rendered by it, Zaikog will receive from the applicant a commission of 3% or a mutually agreed percentage on every completed transaction. In the application, it is broadly stated that the role of Zaikog is to communicate the details of the interested parties to the applicant who will pursue the pro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Authority for Advance Rulings
Mr. J. Khosla Seabird Exploration FZ LLC (the applicant) is a company incorporated under the laws of Dubai Technology and Media free Zone, Dubai and is a tax resident of UAE. It Is a Geophysical company which conducts seismic surveys and provides offshore seismic data acquisition and other associated services to global oil companies. Its main business activity is 2D seismic data acquisition and processing and 2D/3D offshore shallow water data acquisition and processing. Its other activities relate to study the earths structure to identify the existence of hydro carbons which assist oil companies in identifying locations where to drill and explore oil. These services are aimed at increasing exploration success of its oil and gas clients. 2. The applicant has entered into 3 contracts with the Oil and Natural Gas Ltd. (ONGC) on 20th Feb.,2008 for 2D seismic, gravity and magnetic data acquisition and on-board seismic data processing offshore India, during the field seasons 2007-08 and 200...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Authority for Advance Rulings
Reported in : (2008)(126)ECC216
Appellants: One Stop Airline MRO Support Private Limited Vs.For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: S. Ganesh, Sr. Counsel, For BMR and Associates, Sujit Ghosh, D.K. Ranaand and Sudipta Bhattacharjee, Advs., Stephan Lorenzen, MD, One Stop Airline Companies Act, 1956; Customs Tariff Act - Section 3(1) Customs Act - Section 25(1); Central Excise Act - Section 5A; Central Excise Tariff Act - Sections 107 and 108; Indian Aircraft Rules - Rules 2(49), 30, 134(1) and 134(1)(1A); Bihar Finance Act, 1981 - Section 13(1)Hemraj Gordhandas v. H.H. Dave, Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Surat 1969 (2) S.C.R. 252 : 1967 (2) E.L.T. P.350; Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai v. Tullow India Operations Limited 2005 (189) E.L.T. 401; Oblum Electrical Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, BombayCollector of Central Excise v. Parle Exports Ltd. 1988 (38) E.L.T. 741; City of Henderson v. George Delker Co., 235 S.W. 732; Collector of Central Excise v. Ballarpur Industries 19...
Tag this Judgment!