Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
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 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
