Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Court: authority for advance rulings Page 8 of about 283 results (0.292 seconds)

Apr 30 2008 (TRI)

Knowerx Education(India) Private Limited Vs. Dit (international Taxati ...

Court : Authority for Advance Rulings

A. Sinha, J. M/s KnoWerX Education (India) Private Limited, states in its application that it is engaged in promoting professional examinations/certification programmes of foreign institutes, societies, professional bodies, etc., of international repute, which do not have any establishment of their own in India. In the course of this activity, the applicant has signed an agreement with the American Production and Inventory Control Society, Inc. (APICS) which is a non-profit making body, and offers three certification programmes, namely, CPIM, CIRM and CSCP. The applicant is in the process of signing another agreement with the American Society of Transportation and Logistics Inc. (ASTandL) which is also a non-profit making body and offers its own certification programme known as CTL programme. The applicant intends to sign similar agreements in future with other foreign entities. Apart from this, the applicant carries on other activities as well, such as, corporate training, open publi...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 07 2008 (TRI)

Harekrishna Developers (Through Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax

Court : Authority for Advance Rulings

Appellants: Harekrishna Developers (through Jayantibhai Jermabhai Korat)Raheja Development Corporation v. State of Karnataka.Service tax Liability - Construction of residential housing complex - Applicant, a partnership firm, wants to set up a joint venture with a non-resident, to develop a residential housing complex - Residential complex will be constructed by the Applicant itself and said units in complex will be sold to third parties - Whether the Applicant is liable to Service tax under section 65(105)(zzzh) of the Finance Act, 1994 under the notified taxable service of construction of Complex Held, the preamble of Agreement shows that actual sale of land together with the constructed residential unit takes place after the completion of construction, subject to the purchaser/booker paying the sale consideration - Construction of complex in Sub-clause (zzzh) is qualified by the preceding phrase in relation to - This expression In relation to is used by the legislature to widen the...

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 03 2008 (TRI)

In Re: V. Ravi Narayanan

Court : Authority for Advance Rulings

1. The facts of this case lie in a narrow compass. Shri V. Ravi Narayanan (the applicant), left India on 23rd April, 2007 and is living in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. As he has spent more than 182 days outside India, he has claimed the status of a non-resident individual for the financial year 2007-08, corresponding to the asst. yr. 2008-09.He proposes to open a non-resident ordinary deposit (NRO account) with banks in India with the help of remittances from Saudi Arabia. He claims that the interest income arising from that account will be 'investment income' under Section 115C of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act').Accordingly, it will attract income-tax @ 20 per cent under Section 115E of the Act. However, banks in India do not regard this type of income as 'investment income'. They treat it as other income and deduct tax @ 30 per cent. The applicant had taken up the issue with the HDFC bank which finally took the stand that it will deduct tax @ 30 per cent.In the light of the above facts,...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 28 2008 (TRI)

In Re: Mcleod Russel India Ltd.

Court : Authority for Advance Rulings

1. The applicant, a resident Indian company, is engaged in the business of plantation and manufacture of tea. The applicant submitted an application under Section 245Q(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"), in the prescribed Form 34D seeking advance ruling in relation to the determination of tax liability of a non-resident i.e., Moran Holdings, Plc, U.K., pertaining to a transaction undertaken by the applicant with such non-resident.2. As the facts stand out, the applicant purchased 15,20,000 (fifteen lakh twenty thousand) equity shares of Moran Tea Company (India) Ltd. from Moran Holdings Plc, U.K., a non-resident company, as per the sale and purchase agreement (in short SPA) executed between the purchaser (the applicant) and seller (Moran Holdings Plc, U.K.) on January 18, 2007, wherein the purchaser agreed to purchase the said shares of Moran Tea Company held by the seller at Rs. 273 per share. Out of the said shares, the original 5,18,000 shares were acquired by the ...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 28 2008 (TRI)

Airports Authority of India, Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan Vs. Director of Incom ...

Court : Authority for Advance Rulings

Honble Chairman The applicant is a statutory Authority set up under the Airport Authority of India Act, 1994 and a public sector enterprise. It has filed this application in Form 34-D applicable to resident applicants seeking advance ruling in respect of a matter falling within the purview of sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of Section 245N of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The advance ruling is sought primarily on the issue whether the applicant is under an obligation to deduct tax at source under sec. 195 of the Income-tax Act in connection with two contracts (i) Hardware Repair Support Contract; and (ii) Software Maintenance Support Contract, which the applicant entered into on 26th April, 2006 (in continuation of previous Contracts of 2003) with Raytheon Company, USA, which is a non-resident foreign company (hereinafter referred to as Raytheon). In fact, this is the second round of proceedings initiated by the applicant before this Authority. The applicant approached the AAR earlier for...

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 21 2008 (TRI)

One Stop Airline Mro Support Vs. Commissioner of Customs

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!

Jan 21 2008 (TRI)

Accel Frontline Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court : Authority for Advance Rulings

Reported in : (2008)(126)ECC207

For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: S. Murugappan, Adv., R. Balaji, Consultant and R. Neelakantan, Company Secretary Customs Act 1962 - Sections 14 and 28H(1); Customs Tariff Act, 1985 - Section 3, 3(1) and 3(5); Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - Section 3(5); Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 - Rules 3, 7A, 9 and 9(1); Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 - Rule 2; Customs Valuation Rules, 2007Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (2001) 4 SCC 593; Tata Consultancy Services v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2004 (178) ELT 22; Creg v. Planque (1936) 1 KB 669Tata Consultancy Services v. State of Andhra Pradesh.Customs Advance Ruling Data recovery service Valuation Sections 14, 28H(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 Rules 3, 7A, 9 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 Notification No.94/96-Cus dated, 16th December, 1996 Applicants are engaged in the business of providing services for development of information te...

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 16 2007 (TRI)

Triniti Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Authority for Advance Rulings

For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: K.C. Devdas, C.A. and Ananth Padmanabhan, Adv.Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 2(14), 2(47), 9, 9(1), 45(1), 160, 160(1), 161, 163, 163(1), 195, 245R(2) and 245Q(1) o Income--Deemed to accrue or arise in India under Section 9(1)(i) Income from transaction relating to capital asset situated in India--Mr. J, a non-resident was shareholder of an Indian company and he entered into an agreement with the applicant, a USA based company to transfer its shareholding in phased manner. Held: The capital asset, i.e., shares of an Indian company, which has been transferred, are situated in India and income has directly or indirectly accrued/arisen to the non-resident through the transfer of the said capital asset. In fact, the Clause (i) of Section 9(1) is designed to catch any capital gains that a non-resident may make by transfer of any capital asset situated in India and, therefore, the income was to be taxed as capital gains as the income was deemed to accrue...

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 01 2007 (TRI)

Timken France Sas Vs. Director of Income-tax

Court : Authority for Advance Rulings

Reported in : (2008)BusLR60

Direct Taxation - Income Tax - Advance Ruling - Capital gains - Manner of computation - Sections 48, 112(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 - Applicant a non-resident Company incorporated under the laws of France acquired shares in an Indian company, by making payment in foreign currency - Applicant also received bonus shares - Original and bonus shares were held by the Applicant for more than 12 months listed on the Bombay and National Stock Exchange - Applicant sold its entire share-holding consisting of original and bonus shares to the Indian promoters of NRB and submitted that all the conditions requisite to attract proviso to Section 112(1) were complied and therefore computation of tax on long-term capital gains on the sale of original shares should be at 10 percent and for computation of capital gains on the sale of bonus shares, computation must as per Section 48 treating the same as nil, as enjoined by Section 55(2) - Director of Income-tax submitted that the Applicant cannot ava...

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 01 2007 (TRI)

Timken France Sas Vs. Director of Income-tax (international Taxation) ...

Court : Authority for Advance Rulings

(By Honble Chairman) Facts The applicant, Timken France, SAS, is a non-resident company incorporated under the laws of France. The company is engaged, inter alia, in the business of manufacturing anti-friction bearings and allied products and providing services relating thereto. The applicant submits that during the financial year 1986-87, it acquired the shares in NRB Bearings Limited, an Indian company, by making payment in foreign currency i.e. French Francs. Subsequently, over the years, the applicant also received bonus shares from the said Indian company. Thus, the shares held by the applicant original as well as bonus constitute 26 per cent of the share capital of NRB Bearings Limited (hereafter referred to as NRB). Both the original and bonus shares have been held by the applicant for more than 12 months. The shares of NRB are listed on the Bombay Stock Exchange and the National Stock Exchange. While so, on 14th November, 2005 the applicant sold its entire share-holding cons...

Tag this Judgment!


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