Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
ITAT held that the support service fees received by the assessee under the Global Framework Network Agreement constitute commercial business services and do not qualify as royalty under s.9(1)(vi) or as fees for technical services under Article 12 of the India-Netherlands DTAA. Relying on Revenue's acceptance in prior assessments and unchanged facts, the Tribunal found no transfer of intellectual property nor "make-available" of technical knowledge, skills or processes; accordingly Article 12(4) is inapplicable. The fees also do not constitute taxable business profits under Article 7 because the assessee had no permanent establishment in India and rendered services from abroad. Revenue's grounds were dismissed.
ITAT held that the support service fees received by the assessee under the Global Framework Network Agreement constitute commercial business services and do not qualify as royalty under s.9(1)(vi) or as fees for technical services under Article 12 of the India-Netherlands DTAA. Relying on Revenue's acceptance in prior assessments and unchanged facts, the Tribunal found no transfer of intellectual property nor "make-available" of technical knowledge, skills or processes; accordingly Article 12(4) is inapplicable. The fees also do not constitute taxable business profits under Article 7 because the assessee had no permanent establishment in India and rendered services from abroad. Revenue's grounds were dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.