Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
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 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
