Political contribution deductions require assessee-specific proof before cash-back allegations can justify disallowance or unexplained-money additions...
ITAT held that payments received by the taxpayer from its Indian affiliate and a third-party advisor do not constitute "royalty" under Article 13(2) of the India-UK DTAA and, accordingly, are not taxable in India under section 9(1)(vi). The Tribunal further determined there is no dependent agent permanent establishment (DAPE) in India: the Assessing Officer failed to discharge the burden of proving the Article 5(4) conditions (authority to conclude contracts, maintenance of stock, habitual order securing on behalf of the taxpayer), and the transfer-pricing finding that intercompany transactions were at arm's length remained uncontroverted. Prior ITAT decisions for earlier years were followed in favor of the taxpayer.
ITAT held that payments received by the taxpayer from its Indian affiliate and a third-party advisor do not constitute "royalty" under Article 13(2) of the India-UK DTAA and, accordingly, are not taxable in India under section 9(1)(vi). The Tribunal further determined there is no dependent agent permanent establishment (DAPE) in India: the Assessing Officer failed to discharge the burden of proving the Article 5(4) conditions (authority to conclude contracts, maintenance of stock, habitual order securing on behalf of the taxpayer), and the transfer-pricing finding that intercompany transactions were at arm's length remained uncontroverted. Prior ITAT decisions for earlier years were followed in favor of the taxpayer.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
