Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
Page of 4796
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
361 to 380 of 95916 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The ITAT ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing credit for TDS deducted under Section 194C. The Tribunal determined that despite transferring gross contract receipts to constituent partners on a back-to-back basis, the appellant properly reported the profit/loss in its own returns. The AO erroneously invoked Section 238(1) to deny TDS credit, overlooking that the appellant had disclosed relevant profits and claimed corresponding TDS in accordance with Section 199(1) and Rule 37BA(1). Since payments were made to the appellant and TDS was remitted to the government in the appellant's name as evidenced by Form 26AS, the appellant alone was entitled to claim the TDS credit.
The ITAT ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing credit for TDS deducted under Section 194C. The Tribunal determined that despite transferring gross contract receipts to constituent partners on a back-to-back basis, the appellant properly reported the profit/loss in its own returns. The AO erroneously invoked Section 238(1) to deny TDS credit, overlooking that the appellant had disclosed relevant profits and claimed corresponding TDS in accordance with Section 199(1) and Rule 37BA(1). Since payments were made to the appellant and TDS was remitted to the government in the appellant's name as evidenced by Form 26AS, the appellant alone was entitled to claim the TDS credit.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
