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" ?
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 
