Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
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.