Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The HC held that the payments received by the assessee for providing e-invoicing services do not constitute fees for technical services (FTS) under Article 13(4)(c) of the India-UK DTAA or Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. The Court emphasized that the "make available" condition requires the transfer of technical knowledge or skill enabling the recipient to independently use or exploit the technology. Here, the assessee's proprietary software license was non-exclusive and the training imparted did not transfer the technical knowhow or enable the recipient to generate e-invoices independently. Consequently, the receipts were not taxable as FTS under the DTAA or domestic law, negating the need to consider the applicability of Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii).
The HC held that the payments received by the assessee for providing e-invoicing services do not constitute fees for technical services (FTS) under Article 13(4)(c) of the India-UK DTAA or Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. The Court emphasized that the "make available" condition requires the transfer of technical knowledge or skill enabling the recipient to independently use or exploit the technology. Here, the assessee's proprietary software license was non-exclusive and the training imparted did not transfer the technical knowhow or enable the recipient to generate e-invoices independently. Consequently, the receipts were not taxable as FTS under the DTAA or domestic law, negating the need to consider the applicability of Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii).
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.