Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Court: authority for advance rulings Page 10 of about 283 results (0.157 seconds)

Jan 08 2007 (TRI)

Fidelity Northstar Fund and ors.

Court : Authority for Advance Rulings

Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J. (Chairman), A.S. Narang and A. Sinha, Members 1. In this batch of forty cases, thirty applications are filed by Fidelity Group of USA, nine by the Fidelity Group of Canada and one by the Matthews India Fund. All these applications are filed under Section 245Q(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') to seek advance rulings of the Authority on the questions mentioned therein.Inasmuch as the germane questions in all the applications are common, we propose to decide them together. The applicants have taken up application No. AAR/694 of 2006 filed by Fidelity Hastings Street Trust (from USA group) as representative of facts in all other cases. The applicant in AAR/694 of 2006 (for short 'the applicant') is a scheme of investment fund organized as a Massachusetts Business Trust under the laws of Commonwealth of Massachusetts (USA). It is set up to provide investors a continuous source of managed investments in securities. It is registered under the...

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 04 2007 (TRI)

Chemmanur Gold Refinery (P) Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court : Authority for Advance Rulings

Appellants: Chemmanur Gold Refinery (P) Limited Vs.1. The applicant filed this application under Section 28H of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short "the Act") praying this Authority to pronounce advance rulings on the following questions: a) Whether we are permitted to import gold scrap in various forms like dust, ingots etc. directly from a foreign supplier b) Whether we have to import this gold through a public sector canalizing agency like MM TC , instead of directly importing it by us c) We would like to know the rate of customs duty applicable for importing such gold scrap for refining purposes.2. On examination of the application, it was found that the same does not satisfy requirements of the Act. Therefore, a show cause notice was issued calling upon the applicant to explain as to why the application should not be rejected on the following grounds: 2. The application has been examined by the Authority in terms of Section 281 (2) of the Act. The Authority is tentatively of the vie...

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 04 2007 (TRI)

Mack Insurance Auxiliary Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax

Court : Authority for Advance Rulings

Appellants: Mack Insurance Auxiliary Services (P) Ltd. Vs.1. The applicant filed this application under Section 96C of the Finance Act, 1994 (for short "the Service Tax Law"). The office of the Authority pointed out defects and consequently a notice was issued to the applicant to show cause as to why the application should not be rejected. Para 2 of the notice reads as under: 2. The Authority is tentatively of the view that the said application is liable to be rejected on the following two grounds: (a) that in terms of Section 96A (b) of the Act it appears that you do not satisfy the requirements of being an applicant; (ii) the questions raised by you do not appear to be covered under any of the clauses of Section 96C (2) of the Finance Act, 1994.2. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the show cause notice and stated the reply would be filed at the time of hearing of the application.3. Mr. Deepak Bansal, representative of the applicant, filed the reply.Para 3 of the reply reads as f...

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 15 2006 (TRI)

In Re: Shirishkumar Kulkarni

Court : Authority for Advance Rulings

Reported in : (2007)288ITR530AAR

Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J. (Chairman), A.S. Narang and A. Sinha, Members 1. Mr. Shirishkumar Kulkarni (for short 'the applicant') who is a citizen of India, has been living and working in the United States of America (for short 'the USA'). In his application filed under Section 245Q of the IT Act (for short 'the Act'), he has sought advance ruling on the following questions: (i) Are distributions from the Individual Retirement Account (IRA) to Applicant exempt from income taxes in India? (ii) In the case of applicant's death, are the distributions from the IRA to applicant's beneficiary exempt from income taxes in India? 2. The applicant lives and works in the USA since December, 1993, and is a resident of that country. During the period of his employment in the USA, he contributed towards a 401K account which deals in employees' retiral benefit. A part of his salary used to be deposited by his employer into this account on tax deferred basis. As per the Internal Revenue Code (US l...

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 15 2006 (TRI)

Shri Shirishkumar Kulkarni Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax-ii, Pune

Court : Authority for Advance Rulings

A Sinha Mr.Shirishkumar Kulkarni (for short the applicant) who is a citizen of India, has been living and working in the United States of America (for short the U.S.A.). In his application filed under section 245Q of the Income-tax Act (for short the Act), he has sought advance ruling on the following questions : "(i) Are distributions from the Individual Retirement Account (I.R.A.) to Applicant exempt from income taxes in India? (ii) In the case of Applicants death, are the distributions from the I.R.A. to Applicants beneficiary exempt from income taxes in India?" 2. The applicant lives and works in the U.S.A. since December 1993, and is a resident of that country. During the period of his employment in the U.S.A., he contributed towards a 401K account which deals in employees retiral benefit. A part of his salary used to be deposited by his employer into this account on tax-deferred basis. As per the Internal Revenue Code ( U.S law ), tax is payable on these amounts at the time of th...

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 14 2006 (TRI)

In Re: Orissa Chrome Export and

Court : Authority for Advance Rulings

Reported in : (2007)(217)ELT476AAR

Appellants: In Re: Orissa Chrome Export and Mining Company Limited Vs.1. The applicant M/s Orissa Chrome Export and Mining Company Limited, Bhubaneswar, Orissa filed this application under 96C(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 (for short "Service Tax Act") seeking an advance ruling of the Authority on the following questions. 1. Whether the service tax liability can be imposed upon the service availer like us who is engaged in the manufacturing and Exporting and is availing Services like transportation of goods through roads from the transport service provider during the course of our trade and commerce of export. 2. As we are exclusively involved in the 100% export, whether we are entitled for exemption/Waiver/tax holiday from the Service Tax. 3. Is it correct to hold that we are entitled for the benefits of the provisions of Rule 3(1) (iii) of Export of Service Rules, 2005 as transportation services are provided to us in relation to our business or commerce and the ultimate recipient of t...

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 13 2006 (TRI)

In Re: R and B Falcon (A) Pty Ltd.

Court : Authority for Advance Rulings

Reported in : (2007)289ITR369AAR

Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J. (Chairman), A.S. Narang and A. Sinha, Members o Fringe benefit tax--Transportation costIncurred by applicant, a non-resident company--Transportation cost incurred by applicant, a non-resident company, in providing the transportation facility for movement of offshore employees from their residence in home countries (outside India) to the place of work (rig in India) and back is liable to fringe benefit tax.Whether the transportation costs incurred by the applicant on the to and fro journeys of employees from their residences in their home countries to the designated city in India and from there to the rig (in India) fall within the meaning of |conveyance| or |tour and travel (including foreign travel)| in clauses (F) and (Q) respectively of sub-section (2) of section 115WB of the Act. To resolve this controversy it is necessary to comprehend the connotation of terms, |residence|, |tour and travel|, |conveyance| and |transport|. They are not defined in Chap...

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 05 2006 (TRI)

Surbhi Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court : Authority for Advance Rulings

Reported in : (2007)(208)ELT578AAR

1. In this application under Section 23C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short "the CE Act"), the applicant, M/s Surbhi Industries, a partnership firm, is a joint venture of a non-resident, Mr. Shyam Mani, and an Indian company, M/s Shree Ranganatha Export Pvt. Ltd. The applicant is formed with a view to manufacture Indian Mouth Freshener (popularly know as "Mukhwas"). The applicant has been allotted a Modular Industrial Flat in SIDCO Industrial Area, Jammu which is a Notified Area within the meaning of Notification No. 56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002, as amended, which was issued under the Section 5A of the CE Act. Among the ingredients of Indian Mouth Freshener which the applicant proposes to manufacture, the following constitute the main raw materials: The applicant has also obtained the requisite permission from the Directorate of Industries and Commerce for the purpose of manufacturing the said product. On these facts, the applicant has set forth the following two questions to s...

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 05 2006 (TRI)

Arisaig Partners (India) Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Authority for Advance Rulings

Reported in : (2007)5STR239

Appellants: Arisaig Partners (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs.Finance Act, 1994 - Section 96D(2), 96D(4) and 96(5); Export of Services Rules, 2005 1. The applicant is a wholly owned subsidiary Indian company of AP Asia, a foreign company. It is stated that it would be providing, among others investment research and other advisory services. It has entered into an agreement with holding company for providing services on fees which are claimed to be at arm's length on total costs over a financial period.2. On the aforementioned facts, it has sought an advance ruling of the Authority on the following question: Whether investment research and advisory services proposed to be provided by AP India to the overseas entity fulfill the eligibility conditions provided in the Export of Services Rules, 2005 (as amended), which have been introduced by Notification No. 9/2005-section T.dated March 3,2006? 3. On examination of the application and comments of the Commissioner, we are of the view that none of the c...

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 27 2006 (TRI)

In Re: International Hotel

Court : Authority for Advance Rulings

Reported in : (2007)288ITR534AAR

Appellants: In Re: International Hotel Licensing Company S.A.R.L.Vs.Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J. (Chairman), A.S. Narang and A. Sinha, Members 1. M/s International Hotel Licensing Co., SARL (referred to in this ruling as 'the applicant'), filed this application under Section 245Q(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"). The applicant, a non-resident company, is a subsidiary of International Hotel Licensing Co. Investment, SARL which is a Luxembourg company. The applicant is in the business of promoting enterprises and is conducting international advertising, marketing and sales programs for Marriott chain of hotels to promote them in the foreign markets. Marriott is a leading worldwide hospitality group. In 2005, different Marriott group entities entered into various agreements with Unitech Hospitality Ltd., an Indian company (referred to in this ruling as "the owner") in connection with the setting up of an Indian hotel to be constructed, furnished and equipped in Noida (Uttar ...

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //