Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
Customs Assessment Portal centralises classification and valuation guidance to support consistent, transparent and informed compliance across stakehol...
Page of 4918
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 of 98359 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) examined whether a Fixed Place Permanent Establishment (PE) or a Dependent Agent PE (DAPE) existed in India for the assessee. The Assessing Officer (AO) found that the Indian subsidiary, Krones India Pvt. Ltd. (KIPL), was adequately compensated at arm's length for completing agreements involving installation, commissioning, and after-sales services. Since no further attribution would arise, these findings were insignificant. Regarding the Pepsico Jainpur project, the AO found that KIPL was awarded the work, and the assessee only affected certain supplies. Applying the DAPE principles from Progress Rail Locomotive Inc., the High Court held that the appeal failed to raise any substantial questions of law.
The Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) examined whether a Fixed Place Permanent Establishment (PE) or a Dependent Agent PE (DAPE) existed in India for the assessee. The Assessing Officer (AO) found that the Indian subsidiary, Krones India Pvt. Ltd. (KIPL), was adequately compensated at arm's length for completing agreements involving installation, commissioning, and after-sales services. Since no further attribution would arise, these findings were insignificant. Regarding the Pepsico Jainpur project, the AO found that KIPL was awarded the work, and the assessee only affected certain supplies. Applying the DAPE principles from Progress Rail Locomotive Inc., the High Court held that the appeal failed to raise any substantial questions of law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4918 
