Retrospective cancellation of charitable registration under section 12AB(4) was unsustainable; related-party benefit allegations did not prove nongenu...
Merger control notice and disclosure rules: Supreme Court limits penalties, rejects reopening of approved combination, and sets aside adverse findings...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2701 to 2720 of 96100 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Appellate Tribunal addressed the issue of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) under section 195, specifically disallowance under section 40(a)(i) for payments labeled as 'Royalty' under section 9(1)(vi). The AO disallowed payments to VBSNI equating them to previous payments to MCI Communication Service, treated as 'Royalty'. However, the Tribunal ruled that VBSNI payments did not qualify as 'Royalty' under DTAA, thus no TDS was required. The Tribunal's decision, upheld by the High Court, directed deletion of the disallowance. The appeal by the revenue was dismissed.
The Appellate Tribunal addressed the issue of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) under section 195, specifically disallowance under section 40(a)(i) for payments labeled as 'Royalty' under section 9(1)(vi). The AO disallowed payments to VBSNI equating them to previous payments to MCI Communication Service, treated as 'Royalty'. However, the Tribunal ruled that VBSNI payments did not qualify as 'Royalty' under DTAA, thus no TDS was required. The Tribunal's decision, upheld by the High Court, directed deletion of the disallowance. The appeal by the revenue was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.