Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
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.