2016 (9) TMI 345 - AAR - Income Tax

Tax liability - Agreement for Avoidance of Double Taxation between India and Korea - Held that - The answer to question No. 1 is in the affirmative and it is held that it is not taxable. Identical question is disposed of by this Authority in its judgment of in the case of same assessee. 2011 (7) TMI 98 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS

Summary

Issues:
1. Disposal of common questions previously addressed by the Authority.
2. Challenge to the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
3. Department's objection to disposing of the applications.
4. Taxability of the first question.
5. Withdrawal of the second question.

Analysis:
1. The applicants raised common questions previously addressed by the Authority, which were disposed of in a judgment dated 26th July, 2011. The Department acknowledged this fact and agreed that the same question had been resolved in a prior case. The Authority chose to adopt the same view for the current applications, considering the identical nature of the issues. The ruling of the Authority was affirmed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in an order dated 12.01.2016, reinforcing the decision made in the earlier case.

2. The Department noted that the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court had been challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and was pending under Civil Appeal No. 8853 of 2011 and 8854 of 2011. Despite this challenge, the Authority disagreed with the Department's contention, emphasizing that there was no reason to unnecessarily delay the disposal of the applications. The Authority clarified that if the Department wished to contest the rulings, it could follow the prescribed legal procedure.

3. In response to the taxability of the first question, the Authority provided an affirmative answer, ruling that it was not taxable. This decision was crucial in determining the tax implications of the issue raised by the applicants.

4. Regarding the second question, the learned counsel representing the applicants indicated that they were not pursuing it and chose to withdraw the question. The Department also expressed no objection to this course of action. Consequently, the Authority deemed it unnecessary to address the second question, leading to the disposal of all the applications based on the withdrawal of the question by the applicants.

In conclusion, the judgment by the Authority for Advance Rulings in New Delhi addressed the disposal of common questions, the challenge to the High Court's judgment, the Department's objection, the taxability of the first question, and the withdrawal of the second question, ensuring a comprehensive and reasoned decision on each issue raised by the parties involved.