9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (12) TMI 1118 - AAR - Income TaxAdmission of application for advance ruling - Determination of status of assessee - Independent company or AOP - On Shore Services Contract - offshore supply of all goods - Held that - mere filing of return does not attract bar on the admission of the application as provided in section 245R(2) of the Act. We are of the view that only when the issues are shown in the return and notice under section 143(2) is issued, the question raised in the application will be considered as pending for adjudication before the Income-tax Authorities. In the present case the application was filed on 4.4.2012. Return of income was filed on 30.11.2011 i.e. before filing the application. However, notice under section 143(2) was issued on 8.8.2012 i.e. after the date of the application. Following which ruling in Hyosung Corporation (2013 (8) TMI 487 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS) we hold that the question raised by the applicant in the present case is not already pending before the Income-tax Authorities and therefore, the application is admitted.
Issues:
1. Admissibility of the application before the Authority for Advance Rulings based on the timing of filing the return of income. 2. Assessment of the liability to tax in India for amounts received under a contract agreement between a Japanese company and an Indian corporation. 3. Classification of two companies involved in executing a contract as independent entities or an Association of Persons (AOP) under the Income-tax Act. Issue 1: Admissibility of the application before the Authority for Advance Rulings based on the timing of filing the return of income: The Revenue objected to the admissibility of the application, arguing that the return of income was filed before the application, making it pending before the Income-tax Authority. The applicant contended that the mere filing of the return does not bar the application unless the issue raised is pending for adjudication. The Authority analyzed the provisions of the Income-tax Act regarding return processing under section 143(1) and the jurisdiction of the Revenue to examine debatable issues. It was clarified that the Assessing Officer can only adjudicate issues upon issuing specific notices under sections 143(2) or 142(1). The decision cited in previous cases emphasized that filing a return does not automatically invite adjudication unless a dispute is pending. The Authority held that in this case, as the notice under section 143(2) was issued after the application, the question raised was not pending before the Income-tax Authorities, thus admitting the application. Issue 2: Assessment of the liability to tax in India for amounts received under a contract agreement between a Japanese company and an Indian corporation: The applicant sought a ruling on whether amounts received from an Indian corporation under a contract agreement were liable to tax in India under the Income-tax Act and the India-Japan Tax Treaty. The Authority considered the specific terms of the contract and the nature of the transactions to determine the tax liability. The analysis involved interpreting the provisions of the tax treaty and the Income-tax Act to ascertain the applicability of tax on the amounts received by the Japanese company. The ruling would depend on the characterization of the income and the relevant provisions governing taxation in cross-border transactions. Issue 3: Classification of two companies involved in executing a contract as independent entities or an Association of Persons (AOP) under the Income-tax Act: The question raised was whether two companies, one from Japan and the other from India, could be assessed as independent entities or an Association of Persons (AOP) under specific sections of the Income-tax Act. The Authority needed to determine the nature of the relationship between the companies and the activities performed to decide their classification for tax purposes. The assessment would involve analyzing the contractual obligations, the roles of each company in the transaction, and the legal framework governing the taxation of entities engaged in collaborative ventures. The classification would impact the tax treatment and obligations of the companies involved. This detailed analysis of the judgment by the Authority for Advance Rulings in New Delhi highlights the issues raised, the arguments presented by the parties, and the legal considerations involved in determining the admissibility of the application, the tax liability under the contract agreement, and the classification of the companies for tax purposes.
|
