Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The High Court addressed the issue of royalty payment in a case where the ITAT partly allowed the appeal, ruling that the assessee was not required to deduct tax at 20% for certain payments. The court held that expenses incurred in Russia for technical purposes did not constitute royalty as the information gathered was not conveyed to the assessee. The court noted that possession and control of rights, property, or information by the payer were essential for royalty, which was not the case here. The technical documentation prepared in Russia was to be handed over to Russia, not the assessee, making it ineligible for royalty classification. The court concluded that the ITAT's decision was lawful and correctly interpreted the law.
The High Court addressed the issue of royalty payment in a case where the ITAT partly allowed the appeal, ruling that the assessee was not required to deduct tax at 20% for certain payments. The court held that expenses incurred in Russia for technical purposes did not constitute royalty as the information gathered was not conveyed to the assessee. The court noted that possession and control of rights, property, or information by the payer were essential for royalty, which was not the case here. The technical documentation prepared in Russia was to be handed over to Russia, not the assessee, making it ineligible for royalty classification. The court concluded that the ITAT's decision was lawful and correctly interpreted the law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
