Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
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 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
