Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
The assessee received amounts from Indian customers for supplying software updates, patches, and on-call support services. The issue pertained to taxability of these receipts as Fee for Technical Services (FTS)/Fee for Included Services (FIS) under the Income Tax Act and India-USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). The assessee contended that on-call support services cannot be treated as FIS under Article 12(4)(a) of the DTAA, as it is not ancillary to royalty income, or under Article 12(4)(b), as no technical knowledge, know-how, or skill was made available to the service recipient. The Assessing Officer invoked Article 12(4)(b) to tax the receipts, but failed to establish the 'make available' condition through cogent evidence. The Tribunal held that for the 'make available' condition to be satisfied, the service recipient must be capable of performing such services independently without the service provider's aid. As the assessee continued providing on-call support services yearly, it proved that technical knowledge was not transferred to the recipients. Hence, the receipts were not taxable as FIS under Article 12(4)(b) of the DTAA. Regarding interest on refund u/s 244A, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the assessee's claim an.
The assessee received amounts from Indian customers for supplying software updates, patches, and on-call support services. The issue pertained to taxability of these receipts as Fee for Technical Services (FTS)/Fee for Included Services (FIS) under the Income Tax Act and India-USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). The assessee contended that on-call support services cannot be treated as FIS under Article 12(4)(a) of the DTAA, as it is not ancillary to royalty income, or under Article 12(4)(b), as no technical knowledge, know-how, or skill was made available to the service recipient. The Assessing Officer invoked Article 12(4)(b) to tax the receipts, but failed to establish the 'make available' condition through cogent evidence. The Tribunal held that for the 'make available' condition to be satisfied, the service recipient must be capable of performing such services independently without the service provider's aid. As the assessee continued providing on-call support services yearly, it proved that technical knowledge was not transferred to the recipients. Hence, the receipts were not taxable as FIS under Article 12(4)(b) of the DTAA. Regarding interest on refund u/s 244A, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the assessee's claim an.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
