TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the application for advance ruling was barred under the proviso to section 245R(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 because the questions raised were already pending before the income-tax authorities on substantially identical facts and issues.
Analysis: The application concerned receipts under the system fund support services agreement and the reservation system facility agreement. The nature of the services under the new arrangements was found to be identical to the services considered in the applicant's earlier assessments, where the taxability of those receipts had already been examined by the Department and was pending in appellate proceedings. The change in contractual form and the routing of payments through a different group entity did not alter the core nature of the services in dispute. Since the present questions substantially overlapped with issues already pending before the income-tax authorities in earlier years, the statutory bar under clause (i) of the proviso to section 245R(2) was attracted.
Conclusion: The application for advance ruling was not maintainable and was rejected on the ground that the questions were already pending before the income-tax authorities.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the substantive issue raised in an advance ruling application is already pending before the income-tax authorities on identical or substantially identical facts, the application is barred by the proviso to section 245R(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
TaxTMI 
