Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
This case deals with the accrual of income in India from exploration activities and the determination of whether the assessee has a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India under the India-Singapore DTAA. The key points are: The Assessing Officer treated the gross receipts attributed to the PE as deemed profits u/s 44BB and made an addition. The assessee contended that its operations were less than 183 days, covered under Article 5(5) of the DTAA, a special clause for exploration activities, rather than Article 5(1), the general PE clause. The Tribunal held that for specific activities defined in Article 5(5), the minimum period test of 183 days must be applied, and this specific activity-based article prevails over the general rule of Article 5(1). Since the assessee's activities were for less than 183 days, it did not have a PE in India under Article 5(5). Article 5(3) is an exception to Articles 5(1) and 5(2) and prevails as a specific provision. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's appeal and deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer.
This case deals with the accrual of income in India from exploration activities and the determination of whether the assessee has a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India under the India-Singapore DTAA. The key points are: The Assessing Officer treated the gross receipts attributed to the PE as deemed profits u/s 44BB and made an addition. The assessee contended that its operations were less than 183 days, covered under Article 5(5) of the DTAA, a special clause for exploration activities, rather than Article 5(1), the general PE clause. The Tribunal held that for specific activities defined in Article 5(5), the minimum period test of 183 days must be applied, and this specific activity-based article prevails over the general rule of Article 5(1). Since the assessee's activities were for less than 183 days, it did not have a PE in India under Article 5(5). Article 5(3) is an exception to Articles 5(1) and 5(2) and prevails as a specific provision. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's appeal and deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
