Applicant who left India for USA for employment and was in India for 123 days in the relevant previous year neither satisfies cl. (a) nor cl. (c) of section 6(1) and therefore, he was a non- resident during the relevant period and the income that accrued to him outside India by reason of his employment in USA cannot form part of taxable income in India.

Anurag Chaudhry In Re. (2010) 35 DTR 77 (AAR)

Non-resident (Indian company) entering into agreement with Defence Research Development Organisation to assist in identification of global technologies for existing defence related innovations. Lump sum paid by the applicant, activities of Institute of Texas University is not technical services, not taxable in India.

Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry, in Re: (2010) 320 ITR 124 (AAR)

Applicant a Russian company, is not entitled to tax in India in respect of the amount received from the Indian company NTPC for execution of off shore supply contract as the materials were shipped outside India, the title to goods passed outside India (on high seas) and payment was also received outside India as per the terms of the contract.

Joint Stock Company Foreign Economic Association "Tech (2010) 230 CTR 139 (AAR)

Applicant a German company having undertaken a contract as consultant for supply of architectural designs and drawings for constructing complex of Tamil Nadu legislative assembly whereby it is preparing complete working drawings and details for proper execution works during construction and offering technical advice to the sub-contractor by deploying its expertise and is required to be associated with conceptual design stage and ending with the "completion" the transaction cannot be described as a pure sale of drawings and designs and therefore the consideration received by the applicant can be legitimately treated as fees for technical services.

GMP International GmbH In Re. (2010) 229 CTR 139 (AAR)

Applicant, a Norwegian company, having hired a seismic vessel from another non-resident company under a time charter party agreement for the purpose of executing its contract for providing 3D seismic data acquisition and onboard processing services to ONGC, second limb to section 44BB(I) is clearly attracted and not section 44DA or 115A and therefore tax has to be deducted at source from the payments made by the applicant @ 4.223 per cent.

Wavefild Inseis Asa, In Re. (2010) 230 CTR 106 (AAR) / (2010) 36 DTR 139 (AAR)

Applicant companies having resolved to amalgamate in order to achieve synergies of operation, enhanced operational flexibility and to create a stronger base for future growth of the amalgamated entity, the amalgamation can not be characterized as a mere device for avoidance of tax within the meaning of cl. (iii) of the proviso to section 245R(2). Applicants would therefore be entitled to benefits of sections 47(vi) and (vi) and consequently no tax liability would arise in respect of transfer of assets / shares pursuant to and as a part of the terms of amalgamation.

Star Television Entertainainment Ltd. & Ors. (2010) 229 CTR 7 (AAR)

Deduction under section 80HHC cannot be granted to non-residents.

Mustaq Ahmed vs. ADIT (2010) 2 ITR 315 (Chennai)(Trib.) Nopromexport (2010) 36 DTR 25 (AAR)

Referral fee received by the applicant, a UK company from India-based recruitment agency for referring potential Indian clients and candidates to the latter even if it is in the nature of consultancy services, cannot be considered to be ancillary and subsidiary to the enjoyment / application of the right or information referred in para. 3(a) of Artcle 13 of the Indo–UK DTAA, nor the activity of providing information would fall within the ambit of making available the technical knowledge and experience of the service provider, in the absence of PE, the receipts in the nature of referral fee are not taxable even as business profits.

Real Resourcing Ltd, In Re. (2010) 230 CTR 120 (AAR) / (2010) 36 DTR 132 (AAR)

Applicant a Singapore company having entered into agreement with independent service providers (ISPs), in India who are obliged to make adequate space available to store applicant’s products provide other facilities apart from storage, handling, repacking, etc., and deliver the goods to the customers on behalf of the applicant, the demarcated space in the warehouse of ISP constitutes the fixed place of business and the applicant has a PEin India within the meaning of Article 5.1 of the Indo-Singapore DTAA.

Singate Singapore Head quarters (P) Ltd., In re, (2010) 230 CTR 110 (AAR)

Payment received by the applicant from VARs on account of supplies of software products to the end customers from whom the licence fee is not in the nature of royalty to the applicant. As the VARcannot be said to be the agents or dependent agents hence the applicant cannot be deemed to have a PEin India therefore the payment received by the applicant from VARs cannot be taxed as business profits in India under Article 7 of Indo-Japan DTAA.

Dassault Systems K. K. In Re. (2010) 229 CTR 105 (AAR)

Transfer pricing provisions in Chapter X would not be attracted to the contribution of shares of an Indian company by the applicant, a Bahraini company to its subsidiary in Cyprus without any consideration as no capital gains would be chargeable to tax in India on such transfer. As no capital gains would be chargeable the transferee company would not be obliged to withhold tax under section 195.

Amiantit International Holdings Ltd. In Re (2010) 35 DTR 178 (AAR) / (2010) 230 CTR 19 (AAR)