Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.