Refund claim dismissed as time-barred under s.142(5); non-obstante clause read restrictively, merits not decided, self-assessment payments not mere de...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
9201 to 9220 of 96365 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The ITAT held that the taxpayer's liaison office (LO) in India did not constitute a permanent establishment (PE) under Article 5 of the India-Netherlands DTAA, read with the MLI, because the LO's activities were preparatory or auxiliary and no cohesive business operation was carried out in India by a subsidiary or the LO that would attribute income to the taxpayer. The Tribunal found no evidence that LO personnel had authority to conclude contracts or that information collected was used by an active PE in India; the revenue's expectation to prove a negative was untenable. Consistent with SC precedent, the adhoc income addition premised on a PE finding was deleted.
The ITAT held that the taxpayer's liaison office (LO) in India did not constitute a permanent establishment (PE) under Article 5 of the India-Netherlands DTAA, read with the MLI, because the LO's activities were preparatory or auxiliary and no cohesive business operation was carried out in India by a subsidiary or the LO that would attribute income to the taxpayer. The Tribunal found no evidence that LO personnel had authority to conclude contracts or that information collected was used by an active PE in India; the revenue's expectation to prove a negative was untenable. Consistent with SC precedent, the adhoc income addition premised on a PE finding was deleted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
