Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
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 
