Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
The High Court held that the order passed u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act for treating consultancy charges paid to a foreign company as fees for technical services u/s 9(1)(vii) was invalid as it was passed beyond the period of limitation of four years. The transaction or payment to the foreign company related to the financial years 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09. However, the initiation of proceedings and the order were issued in 2014, which was clearly beyond the four-year limitation period. The High Court, following its earlier decisions, ruled in favor of the assessee and against the revenue authorities on this substantial question of law regarding the validity of the order passed beyond the limitation period for tax deducted at source (TDS) on consultancy charges paid to a foreign entity.
The High Court held that the order passed u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act for treating consultancy charges paid to a foreign company as fees for technical services u/s 9(1)(vii) was invalid as it was passed beyond the period of limitation of four years. The transaction or payment to the foreign company related to the financial years 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09. However, the initiation of proceedings and the order were issued in 2014, which was clearly beyond the four-year limitation period. The High Court, following its earlier decisions, ruled in favor of the assessee and against the revenue authorities on this substantial question of law regarding the validity of the order passed beyond the limitation period for tax deducted at source (TDS) on consultancy charges paid to a foreign entity.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
