Pre-existing operational debt disputes require genuine evidence, while undirected running-account payments may be appropriated on a first-in-first-out...
Agency in CNG distribution makes outlet operators commission agents, rendering taxable Business Auxiliary Service rather than purchasing goods for res...
Composite inpatient healthcare supply may retain exemption despite MRP medicine billing, while separate taxable sale characterisation remains disputed...
Working-capital adjustment determines whether software-services transfer-pricing margins fall within the statutory tolerance range, eliminating any ad...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1141 to 1160 of 96177 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.