Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
The assessee, a resident Indian company engaged in manufacturing boiler pressure parts and engineering plants, paid ocean freight charges to a non-resident Korean logistics company, Hyupjin Shipping Co. Ltd. (HSC), for availing logistics services. The Assessing Officer treated the freight charges as royalty u/s 9(1)(vi) and made disallowances u/s 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of tax at source. The key points are: The freight charges were not royalty as the services did not confer any right to use industrial, commercial or scientific equipment. HSC did not have a permanent establishment or business connection in India, and its profits from logistics services were taxable only in Korea under Article 7 of the India-Korea tax treaty. Section 195 mandates tax deduction only on chargeable income paid to non-residents. Since HSC's income was not chargeable in India, no tax was required to be deducted. The disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) was devoid of merits and decided against the revenue.
The assessee, a resident Indian company engaged in manufacturing boiler pressure parts and engineering plants, paid ocean freight charges to a non-resident Korean logistics company, Hyupjin Shipping Co. Ltd. (HSC), for availing logistics services. The Assessing Officer treated the freight charges as royalty u/s 9(1)(vi) and made disallowances u/s 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of tax at source. The key points are: The freight charges were not royalty as the services did not confer any right to use industrial, commercial or scientific equipment. HSC did not have a permanent establishment or business connection in India, and its profits from logistics services were taxable only in Korea under Article 7 of the India-Korea tax treaty. Section 195 mandates tax deduction only on chargeable income paid to non-residents. Since HSC's income was not chargeable in India, no tax was required to be deducted. The disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) was devoid of merits and decided against the revenue.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4807
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
