| The Tax Publishers2019 TaxPub(DT) 8219 (AAR) : (2021) 431 ITR 0453 INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 245N(a)
In view of interpretation of a singular word as given by various Courts under Income Tax Act as well as other Acts, it is crystal clear that 'a transaction' appearing in section 245N(a) would include more than one transaction and as the advance ruling is in respect of 'a transaction', an applicant can file one application in respect of related set of transactions. If the facts and circumstances of two transactions are not identical and totally different, then such transactions may not be clubbed in one application. In the instant case, application was found to be in respect of related transactions. Therefore, request of revenue to reject application for the reason that application was in respect of two transactions, did not have any merit.
|
Advance ruling - Interpretation of 'a transaction' appearing in section 245N(a) - Whether it constitutes a singular transaction - Assessee filed application as regards related transactions
Assessee based at Japan entered into separate contracts with JSW for supply of drawings and documents, for offshore training and for supevision services apart from the contract for offshore supply of equipments, i.e, CDQ units and spares and sought for ruling with reference to taxability of amounts received/receivable from JSW for offshore supply of equipments and materials, etc. As per revenue, the expression 'a transaction' used in section 245N(a) implies a single transction and since the question raised by assessee was in respect of two transactions, the revenue had requested to reject application. Held: In view of interpretation of a singular word as given by various Courts under Income Tax Act as well as other Acts, it is crystal clear that 'a transaction' appearing in section 245N(a) would include more than one transaction and as the advance ruling is in respect of 'a transaction', an applicant can file one application in respect of related set of transactions. If the facts and circumstances of two transactions are not identical and totally different, then such transactions may not be clubbed in one application. In the instant case, application was found to be in respect of related transactions. Therefore, request of revenue to reject application for the reason that application was in respect of two transactions, did not have any merit.
REFERRED : CIT v. Sony Ericsson Mobile Communication India Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 374 ITR 118 (Del) : 2015 TaxPub(DT) 1653 (Del-HC), CIT v. D. Ananda Basappa (2009) 309 ITR 329 (Karn) : 2009 TaxPub(DT) 955 (Karn-HC) and CIT v. Snit. K G Rukminiamma (2011) 331 ITR 211 (Karn) : 2011 TaxPub(DT) 0429 (Karn-HC) and Collector of Customs, Bombay v. United Electrical Industry Ltd. (1999) taxmann.com 1348 (SC) : 1999 TaxPub(EX) 1106 (SC).
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|