Blocked input tax credit for resort construction remains unavailable; interest follows actual utilisation, while delayed payment attracts statutory pe...
Duplicate PAN allocation requires record verification and deactivation reasons before assessment-related transactions can be attributed to an assessee...
Faceless assessment safeguards require requested personal hearings and adequate final show-cause response time, failing which reassessment is required...
The assessing officer (AO) exceeded jurisdiction by reclassifying income as fees for technical services (FTS) instead of royalty, contrary to the limited remand order from the Tribunal. The Tribunal's remand was restricted to examining chargeability under the Act/DTAA as royalty, not FTS. The AO should have sought an open remand from the Tribunal to consider FTS taxation. An AO cannot go beyond a limited remand's scope and examine matters outside the appeal's subject matter, affirmed in S.P. Kochhar and Bhagwandas Associates cases. The impugned addition was deleted on technical grounds as the AO overstepped the Tribunal's limited directions by taxing income as FTS instead of examining royalty chargeability per the remand order.
The assessing officer (AO) exceeded jurisdiction by reclassifying income as fees for technical services (FTS) instead of royalty, contrary to the limited remand order from the Tribunal. The Tribunal's remand was restricted to examining chargeability under the Act/DTAA as royalty, not FTS. The AO should have sought an open remand from the Tribunal to consider FTS taxation. An AO cannot go beyond a limited remand's scope and examine matters outside the appeal's subject matter, affirmed in S.P. Kochhar and Bhagwandas Associates cases. The impugned addition was deleted on technical grounds as the AO overstepped the Tribunal's limited directions by taxing income as FTS instead of examining royalty chargeability per the remand order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
