Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Retrospective taxation through a purportedly clarificatory amendment cannot create a fresh charge or withdraw benefits accrued under the unamended law. The Finance Act, 2010 amendment to section 9, which dispensed with the requirement that technical services be rendered in India, was treated as substantive and applied prospectively despite its stated retrospective date. The notes also state that beneficial Board circulars could be withdrawn only prospectively. Where domestic law and the India-USA DTAA permitted competing interpretations, the interpretation favourable to the assessee prevailed; technical-service income required rendition and utilisation of services in India. The amendment therefore could not impose tax on offshore technical services retrospectively.
Retrospective taxation through a purportedly clarificatory amendment cannot create a fresh charge or withdraw benefits accrued under the unamended law. The Finance Act, 2010 amendment to section 9, which dispensed with the requirement that technical services be rendered in India, was treated as substantive and applied prospectively despite its stated retrospective date. The notes also state that beneficial Board circulars could be withdrawn only prospectively. Where domestic law and the India-USA DTAA permitted competing interpretations, the interpretation favourable to the assessee prevailed; technical-service income required rendition and utilisation of services in India. The amendment therefore could not impose tax on offshore technical services retrospectively.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
