Court : Authority for Advance Rulings
[By Honble Chairman] 1. The following facts are stated by the applicant in this application for Advance Ruling under section 245Q of the Income Tax Act 1961, hereafter referred to as the Act. 1.1. Seabird Exploration FZLLC (the Applicant) is a company incorporated under the laws of United Arab Emirates and is a tax resident of UAE. Seabird is engaged in the business of rendering geophysical services to oil and gas exploration industry. Its core business activity involves: 1) 2D Seismic data acquisition and processing. 2) 2D/3D Shallow water data acquisition and processing. In India, the applicant has been providing offshore 2D and 3D seismic data acquisition and processing services to Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (ONGC) and other oil companies in India. For the purpose of executing the scope of work under such contracts, the applicant requires seismic survey vessels. Seismic survey vessels are special kind of vessels which are fitted with seismic recording systems and receiv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Authority for Advance Rulings
1. Facts: 1.1. The applicant is a non-resident foreign company incorporated in Australia in the year 1907 under the name of Carlton and United Breweries Ltd. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Fosters Group Limited (for short Fosters Group), Australia which is a global multi-beverage group dealing in beer, wine etc. and also non-alcohol beverages. The business of the applicant Fosters Australia Limited includes the brewing, processing, packaging, marketing, promoting and selling of beer products in Australia and abroad. The applicant states that it owns various brands including Fosters brand in relation to beer products which comprises of trade marks, logos, devices, brand guidelines, advertising material, technology and know-how including recipes and brewing specifications. The applicant grants licences in respect of Fosters brand to parties in three countries and, until recently, in India. By virtue of the licence, the licencee can sell, market and distribute and sometimes brew, pr...
Tag this Judgment!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
CIT v. Elecon Engg. Co. Ltd., 1987 166 ITR 66; Nippon Electronics (P.) Ltd. v. CIT, 1979 116 ITR 231 (1 Taxman 122) (Kar.) 1. The following two questions have been raised by the applicant Pro-Quip Corporation USA for advance ruling : "1. Whether the applicant is liable to tax on the amount received from Linde Process Technologies India Ltd. towards consideration for the sale of Engineering, Drawings and Designs received under Purchase Order No. 19004, dated 11-12-1998 of Linde Process Technologies India Ltd. 2. Whether the applicant is entitled to the refund of the tax, deducted by Linde Process Technologies India Ltd. calculated at the rate of 15 per cent on the part of the total remittance of US $ 2, 59, 875 together with interest on delayed payment of tax deducted at source already deposited with bank by the said company aggregating to Rs. 17, 10, 525 ?" 2. The case of the applicant is that it is resident in the United States of America. It was incorporated in the State of Oklahoma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Authority for Advance Rulings
Reported in : (2004)189CTRAAR366
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J. (Chairman), K.D. Singh and K.D. Gupta, Members CIT v. Union Tile Exporters, (1969) 71 ITR 453 (SC); Addl. CIT v. Skoda Export, Praha, (1988) 172 ITR 358 (AP); CIT v. R.D. Aggarwal & Co., (1965) 56 ITR 20 (SC); Anglo-French Textile Co. Ltd v. CIT, (1953) 23 ITR 101 (SC); Union of India and Anr. v. Azadi Bachao Andolan and Anr., (2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC) 1. The applicant, M/s Sutron Corporation, Virginia, USA, is a non-resident company. In response to the tenders floated in three packages by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, India (for short GOAP) in respect of the project for installation of remote stations ("the project"), the applicant prepared and signed proposals in USA and submitted the same. The GOAP awarded contract for package-2 and package-3 to the applicant. We are not concerned with package 1 which was awarded to some third party. Accordingly, the applicant through its authorized country manager (Mr. Naresh Goel) at Hyderabad, entered into two...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Authority for Advance Rulings
Reported in : (2005)197CTRAAR211
Appellants: In Re: Citicorp Trustee Company Ltd. Vs.Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 2(47), 9(1) and 245Q(1); Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 53A and 269UA; Income and Corporation Taxes Act, 1988 - Sections 703, 703(3), 704 and 707; Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act, 1992 - Sections 126, 128 to 130, 136, 137(1) and 138; Financial Services and Markets Act, 2000; Securities Exchange Board of India (Foreign Institutional Investors) Regulations, 1995 Income deemed to accrue or arise in India--UNDER SECTION 9(1)(i)Transfer of capital assets situated in India by applicant, a tax resident of UKThe capital assets of applicant, a non-resident of UK, were shares in Indian companies. As a result of re-organization of the assets in UK the position of the applicant as a trustee of unit trusts changed to that of a depository of open ended investment companies (OEICs). There was no change in the Indian securities as a consequence of re-organization of the applicant. The letter of SEBI disclo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Authority for Advance Rulings
Honble Chairman 1. This application for advance ruling under Section 245Q(1) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as IT Act) has been filed by a non-resident Company incorporated under the laws of Singapore. It is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of Hard Disk Drives. It has been supplying Disks to Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) in India. The applicant states that in order to minimize the delays in the procurement of inputs from the applicant, the OEM has proposed to put in place a Vendor Managed Inventory (VMI) model. Under the VMI model, the applicant would enter into agreements with Independent Service Providers (ISPs) in India who would stock disks in India on behalf of the applicant and deliver the same to the OEM on a Just-in Time basis. The typical steps involved in this arrangement are narrated by the applicant as follows: The OEM would raise a purchase order on the Applicant pursuant to which the Applicant would ship the goods to the ISPs...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Authority for Advance Rulings
Justice Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri The applicant in this application under section 245Q(1) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (for short the Act), is a trust established by General Electric Company and its participating affiliated companies (hereinafter referred to as GE ) by an indenture on December 28, 1927. The applicant is a tax resident of USA. The Trust forms part of a pension, profit sharing, or stock bonus plan qualified under section 401 (a) of the USA Internal Revenue Code. The trust was 1 formed for providing payment of pension and other benefits under the G.E. Pension Plan. The said trust indenture was amended from time to time and was restated in its entirety on July 1,2000. GE sponsors a number of pension plans for the benefit of its employees. The plan- contributory defined benefit pension plan, is for US employees of GE. Under the plan contributions are received from the GE and its employees. The plan states that the payment of all benefits shall be made solely from the assets o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Authority for Advance Rulings
Honble Chairman 1. The applicant ABB Limited- which is a company incorporated in India having its registered office in Bangalore has filed this application seeking advance ruling in respect of the Cost Contribution Agreement which it proposes to enter into with its group Company by name, ABB Research Limited, Zurich. The following questions are formulated by the applicant: (1) Whether pursuant to the Cost Contribution Agreement proposed to be entered by the Applicant with ABB Research Limited, Zurich, (ABB Zurich), the payments to be made to ABB Zurich, representing the Applicants share of the costs incurred towards basic Research and Development (RandD) activities, constitutes income in the hands of ABB Zurich within the meaning of the term in Section 2(24) of the Income-tax Act, 1961)? (2) Based on the answer to Question (1) above, and in view of the facts as stated in Attachment III, and also in light of the declaration provided by ABB Zurich that it does not have a permanent estab...
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!