Infrastructure-development deduction remains available to EPC contractors when substantive statutory conditions outweigh contractor labels in agreemen...
Explained Investment Sources: documented gifts and traceable salary savings supported deletion of additions for property and mutual-fund SIP investmen...
Internal comparable pricing supports arm's-length interest on compulsorily convertible debentures, preventing their recharacterisation as equity for t...
Nominee director protection shields independent financial-institution appointees from criminal liability where they lack involvement in deposit defaul...
The case involved the taxability of Fees for Technical Services (FTS) u/s India-Thailand DTAA. The Appellate Tribunal held that if revenue arises from "profits of an enterprise" u/r Article 7, Article 22 is inapplicable. The AO wrongly invoked Article 22 based on the web portal info, not the Memorandum of Association. FTS falls under business income unless proven otherwise. The existence of Permanent Establishment (PE) in India was wrongly assumed without proper examination. The services provided were technical, managerial, or consultancy, constituting FTS as part of business income, not falling u/s any DTAA article. The AO failed to establish why FTS is not part of business income, so Article 22 couldn't apply. Decision favored the assessee.
The case involved the taxability of Fees for Technical Services (FTS) u/s India-Thailand DTAA. The Appellate Tribunal held that if revenue arises from "profits of an enterprise" u/r Article 7, Article 22 is inapplicable. The AO wrongly invoked Article 22 based on the web portal info, not the Memorandum of Association. FTS falls under business income unless proven otherwise. The existence of Permanent Establishment (PE) in India was wrongly assumed without proper examination. The services provided were technical, managerial, or consultancy, constituting FTS as part of business income, not falling u/s any DTAA article. The AO failed to establish why FTS is not part of business income, so Article 22 couldn't apply. Decision favored the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4881 
