Tax appeal allowed: AO exceeded s.144C DRP mandate by introducing new findings and recharacterising non-resident receipts as permanent establishment i...
Anonymized petitioner gets partial relief: bank guarantee quashed, PVC-coated fabric released under reduced conditions while valuation proceedings con...
ITAT held that payments from the intermediary to the taxpayer, a US tax-resident payment-gateway engaged to collect and remit foreign college fees, do not constitute "royalty" under the Income Tax Act, 1961, because no proprietary technology transfer or grant of right to use technology occurred; the consideration arose from foreign-exchange fluctuation and fee-sharing only. Consequently the AO's addition treating receipts as royalty, as upheld by the CIT(A), is deleted. The AO is directed to verify whether the taxpayer included those receipts in its US gross income (or claimed them as deductions) as shown in the US return; if not, the AO may notify US tax authorities for further action. Appeal disposed accordingly.
ITAT held that payments from the intermediary to the taxpayer, a US tax-resident payment-gateway engaged to collect and remit foreign college fees, do not constitute "royalty" under the Income Tax Act, 1961, because no proprietary technology transfer or grant of right to use technology occurred; the consideration arose from foreign-exchange fluctuation and fee-sharing only. Consequently the AO's addition treating receipts as royalty, as upheld by the CIT(A), is deleted. The AO is directed to verify whether the taxpayer included those receipts in its US gross income (or claimed them as deductions) as shown in the US return; if not, the AO may notify US tax authorities for further action. Appeal disposed accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
