https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32494 An advance ruling application was held barred where the question raised was substantially identical to an issue already pending in related appellate proceedings concerning a merged foreign entity, because a ruling on withholding tax would inevitably affect the recipient's substantive tax liability. Even apart from the statutory bar, the application could be refused in discretion under section 245R(2) to avoid abuse of process and conflicting decisions, especially where the related proceedings had substantially progressed. A prima facie tax-avoidance objection was not accepted, as the material was insufficient to show that the arrangement lacked commercial purpose or was a sham. The application was therefore not entertained and was rejected on maintainability and discretionary grounds. en-us Fri, 27 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Apr 2009 13:05:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32494 An advance ruling application was held barred where the question raised was substantially identical to an issue already pending in related appellate proceedings concerning a merged foreign entity, because a ruling on withholding tax would inevitably affect the recipient's substantive tax liability. Even apart from the statutory bar, the application could be refused in discretion under section 245R(2) to avoid abuse of process and conflicting decisions, especially where the related proceedings had substantially progressed. A prima facie tax-avoidance objection was not accepted, as the material was insufficient to show that the arrangement lacked commercial purpose or was a sham. The application was therefore not entertained and was rejected on maintainability and discretionary grounds. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 27 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32494