Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
Page of 4784
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95673 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 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
