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 overseas sales commission received from Associated Enterprises (AEs) does not constitute "Fees for Technical Services" (FTS) u/s 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, as the services rendered are neither managerial nor consultancy in nature. The assessee company is a champion of indigenously developed technology in India, supplying to global customers with locally developed and globally registered patents. The associated entity performs pure sales functions, connecting potential customers and introducing the assessee to them, while the assessee predominantly handles the remaining activities. The Assessing Officer erroneously treated the overseas sales commission as FTS without appreciating that the associated entity does not render services resulting in FTS or make available technical knowledge. Relying on the case of DCIT v. Welspun Corporation Ltd, it was held that commission paid to non-resident export commission agents for highly technical products does not change the character of the sales agent's activity, as the object is to sell, and familiarity with technical details is only towards that end. Consequently, the impugned payment received by the assessee is commission on sales and marketing services and cannot be treated as FTS u/s 9(1)(vii) of the Act. The levy of interest u/ss 234A and 234B is consequential and mandatory.
The overseas sales commission received from Associated Enterprises (AEs) does not constitute "Fees for Technical Services" (FTS) u/s 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, as the services rendered are neither managerial nor consultancy in nature. The assessee company is a champion of indigenously developed technology in India, supplying to global customers with locally developed and globally registered patents. The associated entity performs pure sales functions, connecting potential customers and introducing the assessee to them, while the assessee predominantly handles the remaining activities. The Assessing Officer erroneously treated the overseas sales commission as FTS without appreciating that the associated entity does not render services resulting in FTS or make available technical knowledge. Relying on the case of DCIT v. Welspun Corporation Ltd, it was held that commission paid to non-resident export commission agents for highly technical products does not change the character of the sales agent's activity, as the object is to sell, and familiarity with technical details is only towards that end. Consequently, the impugned payment received by the assessee is commission on sales and marketing services and cannot be treated as FTS u/s 9(1)(vii) of the Act. The levy of interest u/ss 234A and 234B is consequential and mandatory.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.