Specified regulatory authority income receives conditional tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income character, and return f...
Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-filing...
Input tax credit conditions remain constitutionally valid, with eligible recipient claims considered under GST circulars and retrospective filing dead...
Bogus donation receipts justified commission income assessment and defeated political-party tax exemption for inaccurate accounts and reporting failur...
Pure reimbursement without income element escapes tax withholding, while delayed withholding and unsupported provisions face deferred or renewed scrut...
Public benefit requirement defeats charitable registration where residents' association services are reciprocal, member-only facilities governed by mu...
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.