Advance ruling bar applies where the same taxability issue is already pending in related appellate proceedings.

The proviso to section 245R(2) bars an advance ruling application where the same question is already pending before an income-tax authority, appellate tribunal or court, even if the pending proceedings concern another person after deletion of the words "in the applicant's case". On the stated facts, the payer's appeal involved the taxability in India of the payment to the applicant, the applicability of section 195, and related disallowance under section 40(a)(i), so the advance ruling authority had no jurisdiction and the application was not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the application for advance ruling was barred under the proviso to section 245R(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 because the same question of taxability of the payment was already pending before the appellate authority in the payer's assessment.

Analysis: The proviso to section 245R(2) bars an application where the question raised is already pending before an income-tax authority, appellate tribunal or court. The amendment removed the words "in the applicant's case", so the bar is attracted even if the same question is pending in proceedings concerning another person, provided the issue is the same. On the facts, the payer's appeal directly involved whether the payment to the applicant was taxable in India and whether no deduction was required under section 195, with consequential disallowance under section 40(a)(i). That question was therefore already pending before the appellate authority, and the advance ruling sought by the applicant would necessarily require a ruling on the very same issue.

Conclusion: The application was hit by the jurisdictional bar in the proviso to section 245R(2) and was not maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The Authority declined to entertain the advance ruling request because the core taxability issue was already sub judice in related appellate proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the same substantive tax question is already pending in appellate proceedings, the advance ruling authority lacks jurisdiction to entertain an application on that question, even if the applicant is a different person from the appellant in the pending matter.

---