Faceless reassessment jurisdiction turned on retrospective AO definition, with later faceless-assessment changes treated as clarificatory and procedur...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2121 to 2140 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 taxability of payments as Fee for Technical Services (FTS) u/s 195. The Assessing Officer (AO) found the services provided by the Associate Enterprise (AE) to be FTS, upheld by CIT(A). The assessee argued that the AE did not "make available" knowledge, as required u/s 9 of the Act and Article 12(4)(b) of the DTAA. Referring to relevant cases, the Tribunal held that for FTS taxability, services must not only be technical but also "make available" knowledge. As the AO failed to prove the AE provided technical knowledge, the appeal was allowed, rejecting the AO's reliance on overruled cases.
The Appellate Tribunal addressed the taxability of payments as Fee for Technical Services (FTS) u/s 195. The Assessing Officer (AO) found the services provided by the Associate Enterprise (AE) to be FTS, upheld by CIT(A). The assessee argued that the AE did not "make available" knowledge, as required u/s 9 of the Act and Article 12(4)(b) of the DTAA. Referring to relevant cases, the Tribunal held that for FTS taxability, services must not only be technical but also "make available" knowledge. As the AO failed to prove the AE provided technical knowledge, the appeal was allowed, rejecting the AO's reliance on overruled cases.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
