Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
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.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
