Registration under s.12AB upheld; CIT(Exemptions) exceeded jurisdiction by deciding taxability instead of preliminary verification and registration di...
Dependent Agent PE unresolved for lack of factual inquiry; arm's-length distribution accepted; royalty claim rejected; 15% refund interest (Section 24...
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 
