Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Income-tax exemption for specified regulatory fees and government grants applies subject to non-commercial activity and continuing compliance conditio...
Page of 4811
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
781 to 800 of 96208 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.