Export obligation removed by notification, customs duty demand invalidated; penalties under s.112 and s.114AA quashed due to inadmissible s.108 statem...
Customs officers must wear and use department-issued body-worn cameras when clearing passenger baggage, with daily secure transfer and 30-day retentio...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
10041 to 10060 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 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 4828 
Join Channel 
