Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Income-tax exemption for specified regulatory fees and government grants applies subject to non-commercial activity and continuing compliance conditio...
Digital accessibility audit and remediation deadlines extended, while all other disability-compliance obligations for regulated entities remain unchan...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 96047 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Delhi High Court examined whether guarantee charges received by an appellant from its Indian subsidiaries are taxable in India. The Tribunal found that the appellant's payments did not fall under Article 12 of the DTAA as it was not a party to loan agreements with foreign banks. The guarantee charges were deemed as remuneration for providing parent company guarantees, not interest. The income accrued in India as per the Intra Group Agreement terms. The charges were linked to services provided in India for the benefit of subsidiaries. The Court held that the guarantee fees did not qualify as interest u/s Article 12 of the DTAA. The Court ruled against the appellant, stating that the guarantee charges do not fall under the definition of interest. The issue of whether the charges constitute business income u/s Article 7 of the DTAA was left open for future consideration.
The Delhi High Court examined whether guarantee charges received by an appellant from its Indian subsidiaries are taxable in India. The Tribunal found that the appellant's payments did not fall under Article 12 of the DTAA as it was not a party to loan agreements with foreign banks. The guarantee charges were deemed as remuneration for providing parent company guarantees, not interest. The income accrued in India as per the Intra Group Agreement terms. The charges were linked to services provided in India for the benefit of subsidiaries. The Court held that the guarantee fees did not qualify as interest u/s Article 12 of the DTAA. The Court ruled against the appellant, stating that the guarantee charges do not fall under the definition of interest. The issue of whether the charges constitute business income u/s Article 7 of the DTAA was left open for future consideration.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.