Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
221 to 240 of 96092 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
GIA India was treated as an independent entity and, on the Tribunal's factual findings accepted by the HC, no fixed place, service or agency PE of GIA US arose in India under Article 5 of the India-US DTAA. On royalty, the Court applied the real income principle and the APA framework to hold that only the royalty ultimately retained by GIA US after refund of the excess amount could be taxed in India under Article 12. The transfer pricing recomputation provisions invoked by the Revenue were held inapplicable because the arm's length price was governed by the APA and the refund had already been reflected in GIA India's tax position.
GIA India was treated as an independent entity and, on the Tribunal's factual findings accepted by the HC, no fixed place, service or agency PE of GIA US arose in India under Article 5 of the India-US DTAA. On royalty, the Court applied the real income principle and the APA framework to hold that only the royalty ultimately retained by GIA US after refund of the excess amount could be taxed in India under Article 12. The transfer pricing recomputation provisions invoked by the Revenue were held inapplicable because the arm's length price was governed by the APA and the refund had already been reflected in GIA India's tax position.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.