Bona fide disclosure requirements govern under-reporting penalties, and post-penalty immunity applications cannot secure available statutory protectio...
Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1221 to 1240 of 96092 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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
