Alternative statutory remedy and unexplained delay barred writ review of customs confiscation adjudication, leaving merits for appellate consideration...
Authorised courier due diligence protects against penalties where declared exports conceal prohibited goods despite proper documentation and customs p...
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 4826 
Join Channel 
