Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
ITAT held that the foreign subsidiary incorporated under UAE law, notwithstanding 100% shareholding by the assessee, cannot be treated as the assessee's proprietorship and its income cannot be taxed as proprietary concern; the Tribunal consistently decided this issue in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal also upheld that electric fittings and installations constitute part of plant and machinery and allowed depreciation at 15% accordingly. Further, payments made to settle a patent infringement dispute were characterised as compensatory commercial expediency and not a penalty or expenditure for a purpose prohibited by law; the disallowance under s.37(1) was deleted and the assessee's related grounds were allowed.
ITAT held that the foreign subsidiary incorporated under UAE law, notwithstanding 100% shareholding by the assessee, cannot be treated as the assessee's proprietorship and its income cannot be taxed as proprietary concern; the Tribunal consistently decided this issue in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal also upheld that electric fittings and installations constitute part of plant and machinery and allowed depreciation at 15% accordingly. Further, payments made to settle a patent infringement dispute were characterised as compensatory commercial expediency and not a penalty or expenditure for a purpose prohibited by law; the disallowance under s.37(1) was deleted and the assessee's related grounds were allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
