Restriction of Input Tax Credit under Rule 86A applies only to fraudulently or ineligible availed credit; mere wrongful recipient availment is insuffi...
Business reorganisation requires recognition of successor's modified return; draft orders against dissolved transferor quashed and fresh review direct...
Equalisation levy was held inapplicable to reimbursement paid by an Indian petitioner to its overseas subsidiary for online advertising services obtained from Google USA, because the charging provisions in Sections 164 and 165 of the Finance Act, 2016 apply only to consideration for a specified service received or receivable by a non-resident from a resident in India or from a non-resident with a permanent establishment in India. The Court declined to expand the levy by inference or substance-over-form reasoning, and held that reimbursement was not part of the statutory definition. It further held that the corporate veil could not be pierced absent evidence of impropriety or a sham structure, and that survey statements had no independent probative value to fasten liability.
Equalisation levy was held inapplicable to reimbursement paid by an Indian petitioner to its overseas subsidiary for online advertising services obtained from Google USA, because the charging provisions in Sections 164 and 165 of the Finance Act, 2016 apply only to consideration for a specified service received or receivable by a non-resident from a resident in India or from a non-resident with a permanent establishment in India. The Court declined to expand the levy by inference or substance-over-form reasoning, and held that reimbursement was not part of the statutory definition. It further held that the corporate veil could not be pierced absent evidence of impropriety or a sham structure, and that survey statements had no independent probative value to fasten liability.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
