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" ?
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.