ESOP expenditure allowed as FMV difference; long-term capital gain issue sent back for collector rate determination; deferred income additions disallo...
Appeal allowed; impugned order quashed as regulator failed to prove nexus or manipulative scheme; sale genuine - s.12A(a)-(c), Regs 3(a)-(d),4(1),4(2)...
Appellant's ring-back tone service held OIDAR, taxable domestically for 01.07.2012-31.07.2016; liability confirmed, penalties vacated, remanded for re...
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 
