Specialized Investment Fund distribution now requires dedicated certification, while transitional recognition preserves existing qualified distributor...
Overlapping GST proceedings require Central and State authorities to designate one competent authority for coordinated adjudication of the same matter...
Composite healthcare supplies retain exemption when patient care is the contract's essential character, despite payment through an implementing agency...
Receipt of immovable property requires actual possession or enjoyment; redevelopment allotments exchanged for tenancy rights fall outside deemed incom...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1101 to 1120 of 96176 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Petitioner's revenue from an Indian payer was not subjected to tax deduction at source, despite being taxable income in India. The assessing officer reopened assessment u/s 147, contending the live feed component was taxable as royalty and rejecting the 95:5 bifurcation of license fee between live feed and recorded content. Following the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT v. Fox Network Group, the court found no justification for the reassessment action. The assessing officer's view rejecting the 95:5 bifurcation was rendered perverse in light of the agreement's stipulations. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the order u/s 148A(d).
Petitioner's revenue from an Indian payer was not subjected to tax deduction at source, despite being taxable income in India. The assessing officer reopened assessment u/s 147, contending the live feed component was taxable as royalty and rejecting the 95:5 bifurcation of license fee between live feed and recorded content. Following the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT v. Fox Network Group, the court found no justification for the reassessment action. The assessing officer's view rejecting the 95:5 bifurcation was rendered perverse in light of the agreement's stipulations. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the order u/s 148A(d).
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.