2004 (5) TMI 55 - AAR - Income Tax

Applicant a non-resident company in France has a wholly owned Indian subsidiary - Indian company has been allowed to set up a hardware technology park and the existing factory has been bonded by the Customs - whether the Indian subsidiary would be entitled to tax exemption under section 10A held that application is not maintainable because the non-resident company has sought an advance ruling on the tax liability of the Indian company which is not permissible under section 245N

Summary

Issues: Jurisdiction of Advance Ruling Authority over tax exemption for Indian subsidiary under section 10A of the Income-tax Act.

Analysis:
The case involved the Advance Ruling Authority addressing the issue of whether a non-resident company's Indian subsidiary would be entitled to tax exemption under section 10A of the Income-tax Act. The applicant, a non-resident company in France, had a wholly owned Indian subsidiary engaged in manufacturing electronic connectors. The Indian subsidiary sought tax exemption for the period from 18.03.2002 to 31.03.2010 or at least up to 18.03.2009, due to substantial investments in the unit. However, the jurisdictional Commissioner argued that the application was not maintainable as the non-resident company was seeking an advance ruling on the tax liability of the Indian company, which was not permissible under section 245N of the Act.

The Authority referred to section 245N(a)(i) of the Act, which defines an advance ruling as a determination by the Authority in relation to a transaction undertaken or proposed by a non-resident applicant. In this case, the applicant was not a non-resident, and the transaction did not pertain to the taxability of the applicant as a non-resident. Therefore, the question seeking an advance ruling did not fall within the scope of cases eligible for such rulings. The Authority concurred with the jurisdictional Commissioner that the tax exemption for the Indian subsidiary was not a consequence of the transaction by the non-resident applicant, rendering the application not maintainable, and subsequently rejected it.

The ruling was pronounced by the Authority on May 31, 2004, highlighting the importance of the specific criteria and scope under which advance rulings could be sought and granted, emphasizing the need for alignment between the nature of the transaction, the applicant's residency status, and the subject matter of the ruling sought.