Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
The ITAT held that the Appellant's remuneration for group services performed outside India does not arise in India and thus is not taxable in India under Article 12(5) of the India-Finland DTAA; consequently the Tribunal's prior reasoning in the Appellant's own appeals was affirmed. Separately, the Tribunal determined that guarantee fees charged by the Appellant are passive in nature and, akin to bank guarantee fees, constitute income from other sources rather than business profits, with no permanent establishment attributable; therefore, the Appellant's challenge to the assessment on this point failed. Ground No. 3 was dismissed and the Assessing Officer's order was confirmed.
The ITAT held that the Appellant's remuneration for group services performed outside India does not arise in India and thus is not taxable in India under Article 12(5) of the India-Finland DTAA; consequently the Tribunal's prior reasoning in the Appellant's own appeals was affirmed. Separately, the Tribunal determined that guarantee fees charged by the Appellant are passive in nature and, akin to bank guarantee fees, constitute income from other sources rather than business profits, with no permanent establishment attributable; therefore, the Appellant's challenge to the assessment on this point failed. Ground No. 3 was dismissed and the Assessing Officer's order was confirmed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.