Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
701 to 720 of 95955 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 amounts received by a non-resident corporate assessee (Belgian tax resident) from two Indian group entities do not constitute fees for technical services (FTS) under Article 12(3)(b) of the India-Belgium DTAA or s.9(1)(vii) of the Act on the facts before it. The Tribunal found the services were not managerial, technical or consultancy in character; where some tasks might prima facie meet technical or consultancy tests, the Department failed to discharge the onus by adducing cogent evidence. The Functional Services Agreement and prior non-classification of receipts supported the assessee. The ITAT reversed the Departmental treatment of the receipts as FTS (and rejected inconsistent royalty/FTS characterisation).
ITAT held that amounts received by a non-resident corporate assessee (Belgian tax resident) from two Indian group entities do not constitute fees for technical services (FTS) under Article 12(3)(b) of the India-Belgium DTAA or s.9(1)(vii) of the Act on the facts before it. The Tribunal found the services were not managerial, technical or consultancy in character; where some tasks might prima facie meet technical or consultancy tests, the Department failed to discharge the onus by adducing cogent evidence. The Functional Services Agreement and prior non-classification of receipts supported the assessee. The ITAT reversed the Departmental treatment of the receipts as FTS (and rejected inconsistent royalty/FTS characterisation).
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.