Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, in an advance ruling application concerning a proposed share transfer by a foreign company, the Authority should decline to pronounce a ruling when the applicant seeks a ruling only on section 115JB without accepting adjudication on the related applicability of section 10(38) and its proviso.
Analysis: The application concerned a proposed transaction whose tax treatment necessarily required consideration of the inter-relationship between section 10(38) and section 115JB. The Authority held that an advance ruling must address the relevant aspects of taxability of the transaction as a whole and cannot be confined to a truncated question that excludes a material and disputed component of the same transaction. It also held that, on the wording and scheme of the provisions, section 115JB and section 10(38) had to be read harmoniously, and the authority could not proceed on an assumed exemption under section 10(38) while the Revenue disputed that very premise. In these circumstances, the Authority exercised its discretion to refuse to give a ruling on the questions as framed.
Conclusion: The Authority declined to pronounce an advance ruling on the application and refused to answer the questions in the form presented.