Authentication of paper assessment orders upheld, while qualifying repairs, consumables and vendor advance write-offs remain deductible business claim...
Transaction value cannot be rejected solely on non-statutory valuation guidelines without corroborative evidence supporting reassessment of final cust...
Cross-examination rights and corroborated evidence limit customs penalties for misdeclaration in genuine import transactions involving documented clea...
Tariff classification of vehicle gear components follows the specific gearing entry, displacing motor-vehicle parts classification and related liabili...
Necessary-party requirements limit impleadment of independent entities, while deferred consideration does not create an appealable adverse determinati...
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.