Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
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...
HC upheld assessee's claim that losses of eligible units under s.10A could be set off against profits of non-eligible units, following SC in Yokogawa. It held that payments to Sprint USA for IPLC services, for pre-2012 years, did not constitute "royalty" under s.9(1)(vi) or the India-USA DTAA, as the 2012 Explanations are substantive and not retrospective, and the contrary view in Verizon stands overruled to that extent. Consequently, disallowance under s.40(a)(i) was unsustainable, being discriminatory under Art. 26(3) of the DTAA. Miscellaneous income (employee loan interest, scrap sales) was held eligible for deduction under ss.10A/10B as business income. However, levy of interest under s.234D on excess refund was sustained against the assessee.
HC upheld assessee's claim that losses of eligible units under s.10A could be set off against profits of non-eligible units, following SC in Yokogawa. It held that payments to Sprint USA for IPLC services, for pre-2012 years, did not constitute "royalty" under s.9(1)(vi) or the India-USA DTAA, as the 2012 Explanations are substantive and not retrospective, and the contrary view in Verizon stands overruled to that extent. Consequently, disallowance under s.40(a)(i) was unsustainable, being discriminatory under Art. 26(3) of the DTAA. Miscellaneous income (employee loan interest, scrap sales) was held eligible for deduction under ss.10A/10B as business income. However, levy of interest under s.234D on excess refund was sustained against the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
