Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95715 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
