Working-capital adjustment determines whether software-services transfer-pricing margins fall within the statutory tolerance range, eliminating any ad...
Permanent establishment deductions upheld for expatriate salaries, direct costs and trading losses, while head-office costs require fresh classificati...
Data transmission equipment classification under CTSH 8517 62 remains distinct from residual classification, with exemption evidence requiring scrutin...
Section 37A had to be read as a whole, so the Directorate of Enforcement could challenge a seizure order after being heard before the Competent Authority; the departmental appeal was therefore maintainable. On the merits, subscription to a foreign company's shares, even through memorandum of association, constituted direct investment outside India and fell within foreign security. The Tribunal held that paid-up capital was not a precondition for acquisition, holding or transfer, and the Competent Authority erred in treating the shares as valueless and finding no contravention. It also held that equivalent value seizure under Section 37A is a one-time securing measure and cannot be duplicated for the same foreign security.
Section 37A had to be read as a whole, so the Directorate of Enforcement could challenge a seizure order after being heard before the Competent Authority; the departmental appeal was therefore maintainable. On the merits, subscription to a foreign company's shares, even through memorandum of association, constituted direct investment outside India and fell within foreign security. The Tribunal held that paid-up capital was not a precondition for acquisition, holding or transfer, and the Competent Authority erred in treating the shares as valueless and finding no contravention. It also held that equivalent value seizure under Section 37A is a one-time securing measure and cannot be duplicated for the same foreign security.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.