Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
Governmental authority status supports construction-service exemption, while pre-cutoff contract and stamp-duty compliance requires verification on re...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
81 to 100 of 96510 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 commission received by the assessee, a non-resident group entity, for global sales support services rendered to its Indian affiliate is not taxable in India, as no PE or business connection in India was established and all framework agreements and services were executed outside India. Consequently, attribution of 35% of such commission to India was rejected. ITAT further held that royalty income could not be taxed as business income under s.44DA, as the provision applies only where royalty is effectively connected with a PE in India, which was absent; tax already deducted and offered under s.115A was accepted and transfer pricing adjustments deleted. Penalty u/s 271AA for alleged non-disclosure of certain international transactions was also deleted, ITAT holding that only transactions taxable in India require reporting, while other group transactions were taxable in the country of origin. All grounds of the assessee were allowed.
ITAT held that commission received by the assessee, a non-resident group entity, for global sales support services rendered to its Indian affiliate is not taxable in India, as no PE or business connection in India was established and all framework agreements and services were executed outside India. Consequently, attribution of 35% of such commission to India was rejected. ITAT further held that royalty income could not be taxed as business income under s.44DA, as the provision applies only where royalty is effectively connected with a PE in India, which was absent; tax already deducted and offered under s.115A was accepted and transfer pricing adjustments deleted. Penalty u/s 271AA for alleged non-disclosure of certain international transactions was also deleted, ITAT holding that only transactions taxable in India require reporting, while other group transactions were taxable in the country of origin. All grounds of the assessee were allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.