Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
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 The notes also state that beneficial Board circulars could be withdrawn only prospectively.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 The notes also state that beneficial Board circulars could be withdrawn only prospectively.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 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
