Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
ITAT held that payments by the appellant to anonymous non-resident foreign attorneys/law firms constituted fees for professional services, not fees for technical services under section 9(1)(vii), and therefore were not taxable in India. The Tribunal found section 40(a)(i) contemplates deduction for sums chargeable under the Act and its Explanation defines FTS but omits "professional services"; the specific definition in section 194J governs such fees (lex specialis). Consequently the AO's recharacterisation of the payments as FTS and taxing them under section 9(1)(vii) was erroneous. Appeal allowed; impugned tax/deduction disaffirmed.
ITAT held that payments by the appellant to anonymous non-resident foreign attorneys/law firms constituted fees for professional services, not fees for technical services under section 9(1)(vii), and therefore were not taxable in India. The Tribunal found section 40(a)(i) contemplates deduction for sums chargeable under the Act and its Explanation defines FTS but omits "professional services"; the specific definition in section 194J governs such fees (lex specialis). Consequently the AO's recharacterisation of the payments as FTS and taxing them under section 9(1)(vii) was erroneous. Appeal allowed; impugned tax/deduction disaffirmed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.