Related-party creditor exclusion bars CoC participation where lender rights show policy-making involvement, and post-CIRP assignment cannot cure ineli...
Rectification of apparent typographical errors may proceed without hearing when tax liability, input tax credit, and ruling substance remain unchanged...
The assessee did not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, and the royalty income received during the year was taxable at 10% plus applicable surcharge and cess on a gross basis u/s 9(1)(vi). The matter regarding the quantification of royalty was restored to the Assessing Officer with directions to adopt the royalty amount as per the Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) pending execution between GIA India Lab and the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). Regarding the levy of interest u/s 234A, the Assessing Officer was directed to verify the due date extension for filing the return and allow relief accordingly. The Appellate Tribunal's order in the immediately preceding year was followed for holding that the assessee did not have a PE in India.
The assessee did not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, and the royalty income received during the year was taxable at 10% plus applicable surcharge and cess on a gross basis u/s 9(1)(vi). The matter regarding the quantification of royalty was restored to the Assessing Officer with directions to adopt the royalty amount as per the Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) pending execution between GIA India Lab and the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). Regarding the levy of interest u/s 234A, the Assessing Officer was directed to verify the due date extension for filing the return and allow relief accordingly. The Appellate Tribunal's order in the immediately preceding year was followed for holding that the assessee did not have a PE in India.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
