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 earned income from professional services rendered in foreign countries like Japan, Nepal, and Singapore. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) examined the provisions of Article 12 and Article 14 of the India-Japan Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) pertaining to Assessment Year 2017-18. It held that Article 12 of the DTAA provides that income from professional services or other independent activities would be taxable in the resident country, i.e., India. However, clause 4 of Article 12 excludes payments made to individuals for carrying out independent professional services referred to in Article 14 from the definition of 'fees for technical services.' The ITAT concluded that the Japanese tax authorities' decision to withhold taxes from payments made to the assessee by its Japanese clients cannot be considered unreasonable or incorrect. Consequently, the ITAT allowed the assessee's claim for deduction, deciding against the revenue authorities.
The assessee earned income from professional services rendered in foreign countries like Japan, Nepal, and Singapore. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) examined the provisions of Article 12 and Article 14 of the India-Japan Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) pertaining to Assessment Year 2017-18. It held that Article 12 of the DTAA provides that income from professional services or other independent activities would be taxable in the resident country, i.e., India. However, clause 4 of Article 12 excludes payments made to individuals for carrying out independent professional services referred to in Article 14 from the definition of 'fees for technical services.' The ITAT concluded that the Japanese tax authorities' decision to withhold taxes from payments made to the assessee by its Japanese clients cannot be considered unreasonable or incorrect. Consequently, the ITAT allowed the assessee's claim for deduction, deciding against the revenue authorities.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
