TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 99X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the contract is not involved in this application - It is submitted that in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ishikawajima Harima Heavy Industries V/s DIT [2007 (1) TMI 91 - SUPREME COURT ], the questions raised by the applicant have to be ruled in favour of the applicant - Decided in favour of assessee. - A.A.R. No.940 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 26-7-2011 - Mr. P.K.Balasubramanyan, Mr. V.K. Shridhar, JJ. Present for the applicant Mr. N. Venkataraman, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Taranpreet Singh, FCA, Mr. Akil Sambar, ACA, Mr Hitesh Jain, ACA, Mr. Atul Awasthi, ACA Present for the Department Ms. Meera Srivastava, JDIT, Bangalore. RULING 1. The applicant is a company incorporated in India, engaged in manufa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the applicant that the property in the goods supplied by M/s LS Cables from Korea under the four contracts pass to the applicant outside India, i.e. before the goods entered the customs frontiers of India. Clause 5 of the Memorandum of understanding between the applicant and LS Cables is relied on in support. 2. It is in the context of those contracts that the applicant approached this Authority for an advance ruling. While admitting the application under section 245R (2) of the Income-tax Act, this Authority framed the following questions for ruling:- 1. Whether the amount paid/payable by the Applicant to LSCL under the transaction mentioned in Annexure III in respect of Offshore supply of Equipments is liable to tax in India in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cept the fact that the on-shore supplies are by the applicant and the off-shore supplies are by LS Cables, the case is identical regarding the transaction between LS Cables and the applicant on the one hand and KPTCL on the other with that of the case decided by the Supreme Court. Since the on-shore activities of the applicant are taxed in India, regarding this part of the agreement relating to off-shore activity, the decision of the Supreme Court has to be applied. 4. The representative of the Revenue submitted that the division of responsibility of on-shore and off-shore activities between the consortium partners was not a relevant consideration for considering the liability. What was relevant was the source of Income. Arrangement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
