Charitable trust income application permits verified capital expenditure but rejects deferred pre-operative claims and requires reconsideration of con...
Reinsurance premium deductions require established regulatory breaches, while independently acquired software qualifies within the computer depreciati...
Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
861 to 880 of 96001 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
