Pre-amendment reassessment limitation bars late notices under the preserved regime, invalidating consequential reassessment for affected earlier asses...
Cash-sales explanations for bank deposits require documentary reconciliation; reassessment notice survived where effective response time was available...
Functional comparability in transfer pricing prevents ad hoc arm's length adjustments where functions, assets, risks and reliable comparables are unes...
Contingency expenses, exempt-income disallowance, and royalty benchmarking: unsupported adjustments were deleted under consistent accounting and trans...
ITAT held that the taxpayer's payments to a non-resident vendor were not subject to withholding under s.195 because the receipts constituted business profits under Article 7 of the DTAA, not fees for technical services under s.9(1)(vii)/Article 12. The vendor, a Norway tax resident, had no PE in India and its personnel stayed aggregate 29 days (< three months under Article 5(3)), so the activity did not create a taxable presence. The Tribunal concluded the contract was essentially for sale and repair/replacement of parts (a works contract), not FTS; accordingly the taxpayer was not an assessee-in-default under ss.201(1)/201(1A). Appeal allowed.
ITAT held that the taxpayer's payments to a non-resident vendor were not subject to withholding under s.195 because the receipts constituted business profits under Article 7 of the DTAA, not fees for technical services under s.9(1)(vii)/Article 12. The vendor, a Norway tax resident, had no PE in India and its personnel stayed aggregate 29 days (< three months under Article 5(3)), so the activity did not create a taxable presence. The Tribunal concluded the contract was essentially for sale and repair/replacement of parts (a works contract), not FTS; accordingly the taxpayer was not an assessee-in-default under ss.201(1)/201(1A). Appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4918 
