Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
Page of 4916
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 98302 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
TDS u/s 195 - Taxability of income in India - PE in India - taxation of offshore supplies - Taxation of Fee for Technical Services (FTS) in the absence of FTS article under India-Thailand DTAA. The Tribunal held that HCIL, a subsidiary of Honda Motors Company Ltd., was not required to deduct tax at source for payments made for purchase of raw materials, components, etc. from non-resident associated enterprises as they did not have a PE in India. The Tribunal observed that the DRP and the Department had accepted that these associated enterprises did not have a PE in India. Regarding taxation of offshore supplies, the Tribunal held that since HCIL did not have a PE in India, the directions to attribute profits to operations carried out in the PE were not applicable. Concerning FTS receipts, the Tribunal held that in the absence of an FTS article in the India-Thailand DTAA, and without a PE in India, the FTS receipts were not liable to tax in India as per Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act.
TDS u/s 195 - Taxability of income in India - PE in India - taxation of offshore supplies - Taxation of Fee for Technical Services (FTS) in the absence of FTS article under India-Thailand DTAA. The Tribunal held that HCIL, a subsidiary of Honda Motors Company Ltd., was not required to deduct tax at source for payments made for purchase of raw materials, components, etc. from non-resident associated enterprises as they did not have a PE in India. The Tribunal observed that the DRP and the Department had accepted that these associated enterprises did not have a PE in India. Regarding taxation of offshore supplies, the Tribunal held that since HCIL did not have a PE in India, the directions to attribute profits to operations carried out in the PE were not applicable. Concerning FTS receipts, the Tribunal held that in the absence of an FTS article in the India-Thailand DTAA, and without a PE in India, the FTS receipts were not liable to tax in India as per Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4916 
