Permanent establishment deductions upheld for expatriate salaries, direct costs and trading losses, while head-office costs require fresh classificati...
Data transmission equipment classification under CTSH 8517 62 remains distinct from residual classification, with exemption evidence requiring scrutin...
The HC held that the respondents improperly sought a 5% compounding charge because such higher rate is chargeable only where an earlier offence has been lawfully compounded and the conditions of that compounding order have been complied with; where the first compounding application was rejected, no compounding order arose and 5% could not be claimed on the subsequent application. The petitioner's contention that the higher rate was inapplicable was accepted, the impugned letter dated 08.02.2019 was set aside, and the respondents were directed to proceed in accordance with law in relation to the pending compounding application and any attendant criminal proceedings.
The HC held that the respondents improperly sought a 5% compounding charge because such higher rate is chargeable only where an earlier offence has been lawfully compounded and the conditions of that compounding order have been complied with; where the first compounding application was rejected, no compounding order arose and 5% could not be claimed on the subsequent application. The petitioner's contention that the higher rate was inapplicable was accepted, the impugned letter dated 08.02.2019 was set aside, and the respondents were directed to proceed in accordance with law in relation to the pending compounding application and any attendant criminal proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
