Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
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 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
