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, 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.