Faceless reassessment jurisdiction turned on retrospective AO definition, with later faceless-assessment changes treated as clarificatory and procedur...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2121 to 2140 of 96100 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The ITAT Mumbai held that u/s 194LBC, TDS is not applicable to payments made by a securitization trust to the Originator as Excess Interest Spread (EIS). The tribunal found that the Originator does not qualify as an investor of the trust nor does the payment constitute income from the trust investment. The FAA determined that the Originator is not a holder of securitized debt instruments, thus not an investor. The tribunal rejected the AO's argument that the Assignment Deed is a securitized debt instrument. It clarified the distinction between the Originator, the trust, and the PTC holders. The decision was supported by precedent cases. The appeal was dismissed.
The ITAT Mumbai held that u/s 194LBC, TDS is not applicable to payments made by a securitization trust to the Originator as Excess Interest Spread (EIS). The tribunal found that the Originator does not qualify as an investor of the trust nor does the payment constitute income from the trust investment. The FAA determined that the Originator is not a holder of securitized debt instruments, thus not an investor. The tribunal rejected the AO's argument that the Assignment Deed is a securitized debt instrument. It clarified the distinction between the Originator, the trust, and the PTC holders. The decision was supported by precedent cases. The appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
