Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Page of 4827
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
141 to 160 of 96536 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.