Income-tax prosecution fails when appellate remand removes its factual foundation; directors require company arraignment for vicarious criminal liabil...
Capital character of assignment consideration prevents taxation as residuary income, while unsupported interest-related expenditure remains non-deduct...
Make-available condition shields regional support-service receipts from Indian taxation where no independent capability or permanent establishment exi...
Transfer-pricing treatment of corporate guarantees and convertible loans followed prior-year consistency, with taxable foreign dividends excluded from...
Transfer-pricing benchmarking confines adjustments to associated-enterprise transactions and integrates delayed receivables through TNMM working-capit...
Medical relief status protects government-contracted mobile healthcare from commercial classification, while provisional registration cancellation req...
Charitable registration cancellation requires proof that educational activities abandoned their objects; incidental receipts and retained surplus are ...
Foreign withholding tax eligible for double-taxation relief under sections 90 or 91 cannot be deducted as business expenditure merely because nil Indian tax liability prevents use of the credit. Explanation 1 to section 40(a)(ii) applies based on eligibility for relief, not actual allowance or utilisation; the claimed deduction was therefore rejected. An additional legal claim for that deduction, raised before the first appellate authority, required examination on merits where the return and Form 67 contained the relevant material. Rule 46A did not justify threshold rejection, although the claim ultimately failed.
Foreign withholding tax eligible for double-taxation relief under sections 90 or 91 cannot be deducted as business expenditure merely because nil Indian tax liability prevents use of the credit. Explanation 1 to section 40(a)(ii) applies based on eligibility for relief, not actual allowance or utilisation; the claimed deduction was therefore rejected. An additional legal claim for that deduction, raised before the first appellate authority, required examination on merits where the return and Form 67 contained the relevant material. Rule 46A did not justify threshold rejection, although the claim ultimately failed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.