Customs valuation must use comparable contemporary imports, while confiscation fines and penalties require proportionate recalculation on reassessed v...
Depositor-protection proceedings prevail over corporate insolvency, while liquidators may recover chit receivables using copies of seized company reco...
Intermediary service classification fails where overseas admission facilitation is supplied independently, preserving export treatment and small-provi...
Satellite transponder bandwidth is telecommunication, not Business Support Service; foreign non-telegraph providers triggered no service tax liability...
Commitment proceedings gain extended timelines, structured defect refiling, and automatic resumption of inquiry after the adjusted completion period e...
Centralised assessment transfer becomes unwarranted once the searched person's assessment is complete, requiring restoration to the appropriate charge...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
321 to 340 of 96333 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Payments to a UAE entity for advisory and consultative services were not fees for technical services because the services did not make available any technical know-how, process or methodology enabling independent future use by the recipient. In the absence of a specific FTS article in the India-UAE DTAA, domestic section 9(1)(vii) could not be imported to tax the remittance under the treaty. With no permanent establishment of the UAE entity in India, the income was treated as business profits under Article 7 and not taxable in India. A CBDT circular could not enlarge taxability contrary to the treaty, so the payer was not in default under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) and the demand was deleted.
Payments to a UAE entity for advisory and consultative services were not fees for technical services because the services did not make available any technical know-how, process or methodology enabling independent future use by the recipient. In the absence of a specific FTS article in the India-UAE DTAA, domestic section 9(1)(vii) could not be imported to tax the remittance under the treaty. With no permanent establishment of the UAE entity in India, the income was treated as business profits under Article 7 and not taxable in India. A CBDT circular could not enlarge taxability contrary to the treaty, so the payer was not in default under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) and the demand was deleted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
