https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248 The Advance Ruling Authority in New Delhi rejected M/s. Om Construction's application for an advance ruling under Section 96A of the Finance Act, 1994. The applicant failed to demonstrate collaboration with a non-resident for setting up a joint venture in India, a requirement for eligibility as an "applicant" under the Act. As a result, the application was deemed not maintainable, highlighting the necessity of meeting statutory criteria for seeking advance rulings on tax matters. en-us Thu, 06 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Apr 2014 13:04:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248 The Advance Ruling Authority in New Delhi rejected M/s. Om Construction's application for an advance ruling under Section 96A of the Finance Act, 1994. The applicant failed to demonstrate collaboration with a non-resident for setting up a joint venture in India, a requirement for eligibility as an "applicant" under the Act. As a result, the application was deemed not maintainable, highlighting the necessity of meeting statutory criteria for seeking advance rulings on tax matters. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 06 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248