Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Insolvency professional agency governance rules amended to add nominee directors, tighten independent director eligibility, and regulate managing dire...
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
